[Trade] Stars trade Derek Roy to the Canucks for 2nd pick and Kevin Connauton

[opendoor]

People calling him one dimensional or criticizing his point total might want to look at the kind of offense the team is generating with him on the ice:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...Name=plusMinus

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know if Roy is the answer for the Canucks when it comes to going against Teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks who can play the physical nasty game and absolutely plug up the ice physically like they do.

It just doesn't feel like the Canucks learned their lesson last year against the Kings who physically took the Canucks to the woodshed.

At this point the Canucks should be trying to accelerate to the cup, not stand fast, the window is closing.

I would hate to be any team right now that has to face big fast physical teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks in the playoffs.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...4+45+46+63+67#

he's right with Hamhuis in Corsi and quality of competition

but again, saying he's been horrible and have a horrible contract without any statistics or analysis to back it up, please keep that coming

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Actually they basically did, if you amend to "defensive guy with big shot". This is revisionist history. He was brought in to a) be a strong defensive complement to Edler's offensive roaming style, and b) replace Salo's ~8 goals per season that he was at at that point. At the time of the signing, every Van analyst / blog was going "well, the 16 goals last year were clearly an anomaly, but he's been one of the better defensive guys in the east for a couple of seasons". Either way, he's on pace for better than 10 goals per season, and has been good in his own end in spite of the Canucks generally icing a borderline AHL quality middle six lately.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

opendoor: It's an interesting stat, but he's also no. 3 in this category:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...Name=plusMinus

I think we'd all agree that Garrison was great if he was being paid 3 million per. This is a classic case of looking at the player through the lens of the contract, which is flawed because it fails to take into account the UFA premium. Garrison is fine for what the Canucks need; he's a little overpaid but he's hardly alone in that respect.

Vancouver's real problem is forward depth.

[868904]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if Roy is the answer for the Canucks when it comes to going against Teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks who can play the physical nasty game and absolutely plug up the ice physically like they do.

It just doesn't feel like the Canucks learned their lesson last year against the Kings who physically took the Canucks to the woodshed.

At this point the Canucks should be trying to accelerate to the cup, not stand fast, the window is closing.

I would hate to be any team right now that has to face big fast physical teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks in the playoffs.

That's why they are rumoured to be going hard after Clowe.

[opendoor]

The Hawks are probably one of the least physical playoff teams in the league. They win with skill and speed.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if Roy is the answer for the Canucks when it comes to going against Teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks who can play the physical nasty game and absolutely plug up the ice physically like they do.

It just doesn't feel like the Canucks learned their lesson last year against the Kings who physically took the Canucks to the woodshed.

At this point the Canucks should be trying to accelerate to the cup, not stand fast, the window is closing.

I would hate to be any team right now that has to face big fast physical teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks in the playoffs.

Presumably, that's why they want Clowe...

[Ped]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if Roy is the answer for the Canucks when it comes to going against Teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks who can play the physical nasty game and absolutely plug up the ice physically like they do.

It just doesn't feel like the Canucks learned their lesson last year against the Kings who physically took the Canucks to the woodshed.

At this point the Canucks should be trying to accelerate to the cup, not stand fast, the window is closing.

I would hate to be any team right now that has to face big fast physical teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks in the playoffs.

I don't know.

Not to discount the impact a player like Brown has, for example, but I think the single biggest reason LA beat every team was Quick.

I just don't think LA won on the basis of physical play, certainly not the way Boston did the year before.

[Hells Bells]

Originally Posted by Barca

Whats the ouch for? a +12 shutdown defenceman is bad?

First of all, +12 doesn't mean he's a good defensive defencemen. I've seen Matt Carle in the +20's before.

Secondly, the ouch is because no team with Jason Garrison as their best defencemen is going to have a snowball's chance in hell at winning the Stanley Cup. That's why I said they'll need some guys to step it up.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would hate to be any team right now that has to face big fast physical teams like the Ducks, Kings and Hawks in the playoffs.

There are two things very wrong with this sentence.

First, one of these things is not like the others. The Ducks are actually pretty bad - they're this year's version of last year's Minnesota Wild, lite. As in not as bad as the Wild last year but by no means should they be in 2nd in the conference. The underlying numbers reveal their performance is unsustainable and the reality is probably closer to what the record has been the last 10 games or so. If the Ducks play the Blues in round 1 I'm picking St. Louis. Same goes if they play San Jose.

Also, the Hawks are not physical. They're 3rd from the bottom of the league in hits. They win because they've gotten good goaltending and more importantly they always have the puck. The Kings actually do have a fair bit of physicality to them (though considerably less sans Mitchell and Greene), but the reason they're so good is much the same - the puck is barely ever in their end of the rink.

[Barca]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

First of all, +12 doesn't mean he's a good defensive defencemen. I've seen Matt Carle in the +20's before.

Secondly, the ouch is because no team with Jason Garrison as their best defencemen is going to have a snowball's chance in hell at winning the Stanley Cup. That's why I said they'll need some guys to step it up.

+ - Is a good indication of how good a denfensive defenceman is. because that would mean is isnt on the ice when a goal is scored..

The best defenceman comments was more like the most consistent of our defencemen. Hamhuis is the best Canuck defenceman if he's on his game, and its looking like he's finding his mojo back.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

opendoor: It's an interesting stat, but he's also no. 3 in this category:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...Name=plusMinus

That's not that weird. He's a top 4 defenseman who plays the toughest minutes on the team and logs a lot of PK time; of course his GA are going to be among the top of the team.

5-on-5, he's top 25 in the league in terms of GA per minute of ice time among defensemen. Given the quality of his opposition, that's fantastic.

I think we'd all agree that Garrison was great if he was being paid 3 million per. This is a classic case of looking at the player through the lens of the contract, which is flawed because it fails to take into account the UFA premium. Garrison is fine for what the Canucks need; he's a little overpaid but he's hardly alone in that respect.

Vancouver's real problem is forward depth.

$3M?

That gets you a guy like Steve Montador. You simply cannot get a 27 year old defenseman who's capable of playing against other teams' 1st lines and coming out on top for that kind of money. $3M gets you a slight upgrade on Babchuk.

In each of the last 3 seasons Garrison has played against the toughest opposition of anyone on his team and come out of it allowing fewest GA/60 min among the top 4 defense on his team. He can do that while still generating a decent amount of offense and that's why he's worth his contract.

[Barca]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

opendoor: It's an interesting stat, but he's also no. 3 in this category:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...Name=plusMinus

I think we'd all agree that Garrison was great if he was being paid 3 million per. This is a classic case of looking at the player through the lens of the contract, which is flawed because it fails to take into account the UFA premium. Garrison is fine for what the Canucks need; he's a little overpaid but he's hardly alone in that respect.

Vancouver's real problem is forward depth.

If Garrison is overpaid at 4.6m what do you guys think of Wideman at 5.2m as an offensive defenceman but has 1 goal less Garrison?

Forward depth is a problem if Kesler is out since we didnt have a 3rd and 2nd line center and forced players to play out of their role. But with the Roy trade that preety much fixes that problem and were just waiting for Kesler to return.

The Canucks are still looking for upgrades so still room for improvement.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

There are two things very wrong with this sentence.

First, one of these things is not like the others. The Ducks are actually pretty bad - they're this year's version of last year's Minnesota Wild, lite. As in not as bad as the Wild last year but by no means should they be in 2nd in the conference. The underlying numbers reveal their performance is unsustainable and the reality is probably closer to what the record has been the last 10 games or so. If the Ducks play the Blues in round 1 I'm picking St. Louis. Same goes if they play San Jose.

Also, the Hawks are not physical. They're 3rd from the bottom of the league in hits. They win because they've gotten good goaltending and more importantly they always have the puck. The Kings actually do have a fair bit of physicality to them (though considerably less sans Mitchell and Greene), but the reason they're so good is much the same - the puck is barely ever in their end of the rink.

The Hawks bottom 6 forward group is very physical, and they have very good speed and close quickly, I would argue that the Hawks play a very good physical game that makes room for their top 6.

I don't know what you're getting on about the Ducks, they are second in the conference, 9 points up on anyone else and that's with their stumble over the last 10 games, but they have probably one of the best mixes of physical toughness and scoring and its wrapped around their top 6, They have the second best goals differential in the conference and they are solid and tough at all ends of the ice. If I was to name a contending team they would be a condtending team and not a dark horse.

To me right now

Contenders - Ducks, Hawks, Kings
Black Horse - Blues
Pretenders - Sharks, Detroit, Vancouver, Minny
Not a chance even if they get in Edmonton, Columbus

[Barca]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not that weird. He's a top 4 defenseman who plays the toughest minutes on the team and logs a lot of PK time; of course his GA are going to be among the top of the team.

5-on-5, he's top 25 in the league in terms of GA per minute of ice time among defensemen. Given the quality of his opposition, that's fantastic.

$3M?

That gets you a guy like Steve Montador. You simply cannot get a 27 year old defenseman who's capable of playing against other teams' 1st lines and coming out on top for that kind of money. $3M gets you a slight upgrade on Babchuk.

In each of the last 3 seasons Garrison has played against the toughest opposition of anyone on his team and come out of it allowing fewest GA/60 min among the top 4 defense on his team. He can do that while still generating a decent amount of offense and that's why he's worth his contract.

In a perfect world we can sign Malkin at 4m next year!

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know what you're getting on about the Ducks

They have the highest PDO in the league. It has only recently dropped fifteen points since they've started playing like the team they actually are. It's still highest in the league, but if it were closer to 1, they'd be around 6-10 in the conference which is where they belong. The best predictor of future success is fenwick close %, and the Ducks are around 47%. That's not good. It's about on par with Nashville and Colorado. They're better than those teams largely because they have guys who shoot at a higher percentage - 10.6% of their shots go into the net, good for 3rd in the league. That number, too, is on its way down, as it was previously close to 12. They've started normalizing, and their record has started to follow suit, as it will continue to.

It's reflected in how they play. Watch the Kings play and be terrified at the prospect of having to face them. Watch the Ducks play and wonder how the hell all the fuss is about.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not that weird. He's a top 4 defenseman who plays the toughest minutes on the team and logs a lot of PK time; of course his GA are going to be among the top of the team.

5-on-5, he's top 25 in the league in terms of GA per minute of ice time among defensemen. Given the quality of his opposition, that's fantastic.

$3M?

That gets you a guy like Steve Montador. You simply cannot get a 27 year old defenseman who's capable of playing against other teams' 1st lines and coming out on top for that kind of money. $3M gets you a slight upgrade on Babchuk.

In each of the last 3 seasons Garrison has played against the toughest opposition of anyone on his team and come out of it allowing fewest GA/60 min among the top 4 defense on his team. He can do that while still generating a decent amount of offense and that's why he's worth his contract.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I am not saying Garrison is overpaid relative to other UFAs, just that the premium you pay for UFAs can sometimes lead to unrealistic expectations for them, such that they are criticized even when their performance is actually just fine by their own career-standards. For clarity: I think Garrison is doing just fine.

EDITED to add this: by the statistics you've posted suggesting that Garrison is a key contributor on the Canucks' defence, the two best defencemen on the Flames are.... Dennis Wideman and Mark Giordano. Bouwmeester isn't even close.

I'm no expert, but I'd suggest that most people who've watched all of the games would rank those defencemen differently.

[CaptainCrunch]

You can pull all of that out, but at the end of the day, they are sitting at the point where they're not likely going to move up in the standings and its unlkely that they're going to move down in the standings, they're in the worst position in the NHL for finding motivation.

They are a very talented, well coached team that is pretty well right where they are because they are a very good team.

They are tough, skilled and nasty through their lineup, and getting very good goaltending.

The results are there and they're finding a way to be successful.

[minnow]

A new diver for their world class diving team...he'll fit right in I'm sure.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I am not saying Garrison is overpaid relative to other UFAs, just that the premium you pay for UFAs can sometimes lead to unrealistic expectations for them, such that they are criticized even when their performance is actually just fine by their own career-standards. For clarity: I think Garrison is doing just fine.

EDITED to add this: by the statistics you've posted suggesting that Garrison is a key contributor on the Canucks' defence, the two best defencemen on the Flames are.... Dennis Wideman and Mark Giordano. Bouwmeester isn't even close.

I'm no expert, but I'd suggest that most people who've watched all of the games would rank those defencemen differently.

You have to consider the type of minutes they're getting. Bouwmeester (and to a lesser extent Giordano) has to do all the heavy lifting because Wideman and Brodie need to be sheltered to be effective. So Wideman's numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. That's not the case for Garrison where he plays the toughest competition on his team.

As for Giordano vs. Bouwmeester, it's kind of the same thing. About 40% of Giordano's ES ice time has been with Wideman and Sarich and his numbers have benefited from the easier competition. Bouwmeester on the other hand has had to play the other teams' top line every single game. Doing that in front of terrible goaltending is going to lead to some pretty ugly numbers that might not be totally deserved based on his own play.

It's similar to why people aren't heralding Chris Tanev as Vancouver's best defenseman. He's put up fantastic defensive numbers in terms of GA, shot differential, and things like Corsi and Fenwick. But he plays much easier minutes than guys like Garrison or Hamhuis so his numbers need to be put into context. Garrison, on the other hand, is excelling while playing against elite opponents.