The Manny Malhotra Ideal

Cam Charron
October 02 2013 11:46AM

The Canucks' third-line centre spot is notably bare. As Thom noted on Twitter, there are a lot of players that fit the third-line centre role very well in expiring deals. While I haven't checked to see exactly who these players are, a couple of names that come to mind are Jay McClement and Tom Pyatt, reasonable players that could fit a third-line role effectively.

This is all in sort of this attempt to recreate the Manny Malhotra Ideal. Malhotra had an excellent 2011 season and the only time Mike Gillis has made a move at the deadline is to upgrade his team's primary defensive centreman, in 2012 with Samme Pahlsson and again in 2013 with Derek Roy.

I think there's a misconception as to what Malhotra did in 2011.

Here are the list of things we talk about for Malhotra:

  • He started just 3 shifts in the defensive zone for every 1 shift he started in the offensive zone. This, in turn, allowed the Sedin twins and Ryan Kesler to run roughshod in the offensive zone.
     
  • He was a very good defensive centreman.

Here are the list of things that are ignored in that 2011 season:

I think there are two things that are overlooked: he was helped out a lot defensively by his goaltending. Perhaps he got a little lucky. He was in a position to get out-shot, and he did, by a clip of 8.55 to 10.14 according to Hockey Analysis. He still finished at a +9 because the goaltending behind him was so good.

It's easy to get swept up in how important Malhotra was in 2011, but without the PDO boost, how fondly are we remembering him today? Mainstreamers praise him all the time and "stats guys" like myself and Drance, probably because we view his role as being fairly important, are all too cool to go along with it. I mean, how much have we written about Manny Malhotra in the last two years? He got defensive zone starts! 

But Malhotra's offensive game was limited. Among forwards with 500 minutes in 2011, Malhotra's even strength points per 60 minutes was 274th out of 336 players. Pahlsson in 2012 was 296th in the same statistical category out of 329. In 2013, the next Canuck to get a shot at that position was Max Lapierre at 299th. Derek Roy was much higher, at 122nd, but he obviously never got going in Vancouver.

I feel like the Canucks need more Roys and fewer Malhotras. There's no way we can split Roy's PDO by his time in Dallas and Vancouver last year, but if you have a conceptual understanding of PDO you can accept that it was much lower than it should have been. I have him at 4 even strength points in 167:37 of ice-time, which works out to 1.43 per 60. Higher than Malhotra et al. but ultimately bringing down Roy's average from Dallas earlier in the season, where his 15 points in 434:09 of even strength time would give him 2.07 overall. (Sorted that out from NHL.com)

Those are the kind of centres the Canucks need to target. Malhotra's a likeable hockey player and I get the reflex to look back on his 2011 season with reverence and a "what could have been" for the rest of his career as a Canuck had he not got hurt, but can we posit how much of Malhotra's minus-14 in 2011-2013 was caused by longterm damage to his eye and how much was because, according to Hockey Analysis, in those two years Canuck goalies just saved .910? That mark was the lowest of any regular forward the Canucks iced during that time.

You can't recreate Malhotra from 2011. All the circumstances worked in his favour. The best solution is to find another second-line centreman and push players down the depth chart, rather than starting with the depth chart and plugging players in as necessary. The Canucks are getting worse offensively at that position, looking for the next Manny.

63811cbf517d2d685ea09e103488ea3a
Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
Avatar
#1 Fred-65
October 02 2013, 12:06PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props

Any one you can rely for face offs in our end is good for me. I don't believe the importance of this is fully grasped by many. A team that relies on puck possession has to start with the puck. Or they spend way too much time fighting to get it back. A lot like soccer you have to maintain possession. If just one of MG summer pick ups can be depended on the fill that spot the team will flourish. Especially at home when you get the last change and that's 50% of the games :-)

Avatar
#2 NM00
October 02 2013, 12:08PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
2
props

"The best solution is to find another second-line centreman and push players down the depth chart, rather than starting with the depth chart and plugging players in as necessary. The Canucks are getting worse offensively at that position, looking for the next Manny."

While I agree with this, there are some problems here.

1. Cap space

2. A willingness from a legit top 2 centre to play a 3rd centre role.

There are three means of player acquisition: draft, trade & free agency.

With Gaunce & Horvat being sent down, I suspect the chances of finding a homegrown centre are put off for at least another year.

Free agency, considering the Canucks' cap space, has brought in the likes of Santorelli and Richardson.

Even if the Canucks had the cap space to lure in a Grabo, Cullen or Roy, would any of these players have been amenable to playing behind Henrik and Kesler?

Grabo, smartly, chose to sign in Washington to play as the 2LC and will try and hit a homerun in free agency next summer. He'll probably succeed.

Cullen & Roy chose to go to Nashville and St Louis respectively where there is arguably more fluidity at the centre ice position.

The only way Hank & Kes aren't the top 2 centres is if one of them - and by that I mean Kesler - is injured.

So then it's back to the trade market where the Canucks can either choose a low end option and give up minimal assets (Lappiere/Pahlsson) or go for a higher end rental and give up more assets (Roy).

The most realistic way to solve the depth issue is internally.

But that is at least one season away if the stars align just perfectly unless Schroeder somehow emerges.

Mind you, none of this matters because the Canucks aren't a legitimate contender...

Avatar
#3 antro
October 02 2013, 12:47PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
0
props

Revisionist! ;)

Great point though.

Avatar
#4 Ted
October 02 2013, 12:55PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props

Manny is missed and it was a nice luxury to have a guy out there who could be relied on to win a defensive zone face-off and check the other team's top scorers.

I'm not sure how Torts utilizes his third line. Wait and see I guess. Maybe he likes to roll more offense.

Manny is an example of how important non-scoring players can be. It's too bad he had to go sooner than anticipated.

Canucks could add some homegrown talent to line 3 in a couple years but that isn't a certainty. Henrik and Kes had to take more def. zone draws. Maybe our new third line will be more reliable in their own end and allow the top 2 lines focus on offence.

Avatar
#5 5mintuesinthebox
October 02 2013, 01:00PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

I still believe to this day that if Malhotra doesnt go down with the eye injury, the Canucks win the cup.

Many might think of that as a bit of a stretch, but if he was available to take some of the defensive responsibilities and key defensive zone faceoffs, off of Kesler, it completely changes the dynamic of how the team plays.

Manny being missing from the lineup is still felt, just look at our faceoff percentages from last season. I think manny was far more key to this teams success than many people give him credit for.

Avatar
#6 van
October 02 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

So, going with Dalpe, Schroeder or Santorelli is a step in the right direction? Not in quality, but in terms of offence.

Avatar
#8 NM00
October 02 2013, 01:28PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props
van wrote:

So, going with Dalpe, Schroeder or Santorelli is a step in the right direction? Not in quality, but in terms of offence.

A poo poo platter of fringy NHLers probably isn't going to turn into chicken salad...

Avatar
#9 NM00
October 02 2013, 01:41PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
2
props
5mintuesinthebox wrote:

I still believe to this day that if Malhotra doesnt go down with the eye injury, the Canucks win the cup.

Many might think of that as a bit of a stretch, but if he was available to take some of the defensive responsibilities and key defensive zone faceoffs, off of Kesler, it completely changes the dynamic of how the team plays.

Manny being missing from the lineup is still felt, just look at our faceoff percentages from last season. I think manny was far more key to this teams success than many people give him credit for.

I believe to this day that one more Luongo meltdown vs Chicago and it would be three 1st round exits in a row...

Avatar
#10 dan
October 02 2013, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Yes... a 3C who can create offensively IS the big hole (I have been saying it for three years) A. Vermette type - My research shows an ave 3C gets 18G and 45 pts- These players are very hard to get! & command 3.5-4 mill.

I would have tried a more offensive type (like Boyes) & converted him to center & used him on 2 PP unit.Hansen & Higgins could score 20 g with a playmaking center

Nux have too much $$ tied up on D...& their offense will suffer. This IS a mistake for a cup contender!

I'm a big fan of Gilly 9for good reason) He is clearly the best GM the team has ever had. BUT, his failure to address the 3C position will haunt him like Burkie & Cloutier)

Avatar
#11 NM00
October 02 2013, 02:09PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
+1
2
props

@dan

"I'm a big fan of Gilly 9for good reason) He is clearly the best GM the team has ever had."

False.

Avatar
#12 nateb123
October 02 2013, 02:39PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

To me, this points to what the Canucks are doing as the right thing. Bringing in a former 2LC in Santorelli, 4LC in Richardson and projected 2LC Dalpe to fight with Schroeder. Yes 3LC is a promotion for all of these guys but the idea that every player should be over qualified is a ridiculous notion that Nucks fans hold. The world has never worked that way in the history of mankind. Putting a bunch of guys who COULD succeed and cement their position is how you drive performance out of the assets you have. Sadly management skill is not a common attribute among sports fans so this is rarely heard from anyone but MG

Avatar
#13 NM00
October 02 2013, 02:50PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
3
props
nateb123 wrote:

To me, this points to what the Canucks are doing as the right thing. Bringing in a former 2LC in Santorelli, 4LC in Richardson and projected 2LC Dalpe to fight with Schroeder. Yes 3LC is a promotion for all of these guys but the idea that every player should be over qualified is a ridiculous notion that Nucks fans hold. The world has never worked that way in the history of mankind. Putting a bunch of guys who COULD succeed and cement their position is how you drive performance out of the assets you have. Sadly management skill is not a common attribute among sports fans so this is rarely heard from anyone but MG

If the Canucks were doing the "right thing", there would have been cap space to get a proven commodity.

Or the spot would have been claimed by Cody Hodgson, Jordan Schroeder, Brendan Gaunce or Bo Horvat...

The fact that they are, once again, trying to catch lightning in a bottle is evidence that they have been and continue to be doing the wrong thing.

Sadly, management skill is not a common attribute amongst the groupthink apologists...

Avatar
#14 Senrik Hedin
October 02 2013, 03:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

I agree - I think if Kesler goes down, Malhotra at 3C would've meant we have the same concern that we have now. A 3C that is offensively competent enough to play top 6.

Remains to be seen what Santorelli, Dalpe and Schroeder can do at centre, but I don't think we are trying to find a Malhotra replacement. We just need a good third line, which we haven't had since 2011, which is why people tend to associate our search for 3C with a Malhotra replacement.

Also, with Torts' system of having two forwards forechecking aggressively and generating offense on the rush, it may be better to look for someone that's not in Malhotra's mold.

Given our situation re salary cap, I do like what MG is doing here. Basically giving 4 guys an extended tryout to win a couple spots on the team. Maybe guys who are all playing to salvage their careers or to prove a point + healthy internal competition can yield something useful. If not, there's always the trade deadline right? right?

Avatar
#15 Peachy
October 02 2013, 03:56PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props
NM00 wrote:

"I'm a big fan of Gilly 9for good reason) He is clearly the best GM the team has ever had."

False.

Defend that statement; note that it isn't enough to point out Gillis's flaws, you need to establish that other GMs haven't been better.

Canucks have have a long run of crappy GMs.

By the metric that counts most (wins, given that cups aren't available), Gillis has presided over, by far the most successful period in Canucks history.

Avatar
#16 RobG
October 02 2013, 04:06PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props
Peachy wrote:

Defend that statement; note that it isn't enough to point out Gillis's flaws, you need to establish that other GMs haven't been better.

Canucks have have a long run of crappy GMs.

By the metric that counts most (wins, given that cups aren't available), Gillis has presided over, by far the most successful period in Canucks history.

Gilles has presided over the most sucessful period in franchise history because he got lucky and just happened to get the team at a time when the Burke/Nonis core came into its prime. Gilles added a few key pieces leading up to the cup run but for the most part that team was built by somebody else.

Avatar
#17 NM00
October 02 2013, 04:14PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
2
props

@Peachy

Actually, this is the claim that needs to be defended:

"He (Gillis) is clearly the best GM the team has ever had."

And it appears you are going to do the defending:

"By the metric that counts most (wins, given that cups aren't available), Gillis has presided over, by far the most successful period in Canucks history."

So let me counter:

Chris Osgood is a better goaltender than Roberto Luongo based on the metric that counts: Stanley Cups.

Let me take it a step further:

From 2001-2004, Dan Cloutier was a better goaltender than Roberto Luongo based on regular season and playoff win totals.

If you want to know a general manager's save percentage, look at his transaction record...

Avatar
#18 NM00
October 02 2013, 04:15PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props
RobG wrote:

Gilles has presided over the most sucessful period in franchise history because he got lucky and just happened to get the team at a time when the Burke/Nonis core came into its prime. Gilles added a few key pieces leading up to the cup run but for the most part that team was built by somebody else.

Whether this is genuine or sarcastic, well done...

Avatar
#19 5minutesinthebox
October 02 2013, 04:48PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

So youre saying Im just pointing out the obvious?

Avatar
#20 5minutesinthebox
October 02 2013, 04:51PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props
RobG wrote:

Gilles has presided over the most sucessful period in franchise history because he got lucky and just happened to get the team at a time when the Burke/Nonis core came into its prime. Gilles added a few key pieces leading up to the cup run but for the most part that team was built by somebody else.

Then why werent Burke and Nonis as successful with the team as Gillis has been? Same core, different results.

Avatar
#21 5minutesinthebox
October 02 2013, 04:58PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props

@NM00

But whenver anyone brings up the fact that Gillis acquired the necessary complimentary pieces in order for the team to suceeed, you have some excuse how it was just luck that the team had more success under Gillis than his predecessors, or that his best signings were simply because of geographic location, or the fact the core resigned for below market value. The argument is simple Burke/Nonis could not do what Gillis did with the same (core) team.

Avatar
#22 Peachy
October 02 2013, 06:03PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@NM00

We're comparing GMs, not goaltenders. Specifically, we're comparing Canuck GMs, not goaltenders between teams.

If Gillis isn't the best, who is? And by what metric, and why is that metric more valid than wins?

My point is only that, by reasonable measures, dan's claim that Gillis is the best GM in Canucks history stands on solid ground. Granted, that's not saying much. He could be better of course.

Avatar
#23 Good stuff
October 02 2013, 06:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

Very interesting. I've never noted his PDO and Sv% that season. Definitely puts some things in perspective.

But I still believe they need another Manny type center over a Roy type centre, mainly cause of the 'insurance issue". Kesler is not gonna stay healthy all season and in playoffs. We know this. And when he goes down, it leaves them with only 1 centre who can eat tough mins (Hank). That player also happens to be their most important player who they rely on for offense. They need someone who can help eat the toughs when Kes goes down and/or to give a healthy Kesler/Hank some easier mins.

Not gonna lie, I almost threw my remote through the TV when Edm got Gordon and Van didn't. He was exactly the guy they needed (tough min eater, good on faceoffs, excellent Pker). Even if they let Schroeder play 3C, Gordon could play 4C and eat a whole scwhack of d-zone starts and tougher mins that they typical 4th line.

Either way, due to their negligence (again) this past summer - they'll be shopping for a 3C (again) at trade deadline. This teams bottom 6 is, by far, the worst of any Cup contending team in the league. Somethings gotta give.

Avatar
#24 NM00
October 02 2013, 06:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
5minutesinthebox wrote:

But whenver anyone brings up the fact that Gillis acquired the necessary complimentary pieces in order for the team to suceeed, you have some excuse how it was just luck that the team had more success under Gillis than his predecessors, or that his best signings were simply because of geographic location, or the fact the core resigned for below market value. The argument is simple Burke/Nonis could not do what Gillis did with the same (core) team.

Because Burke had Luongo & Schneider?

And Edler, Raymond, Burrows & Hansen for that matter?

Did the Canucks have the highest payroll in the league (tied with many, of course) when Burke was GM?

The Burke/Nonis core happened to hit their primes when both were out of the organization.

By the same token, Burke was extremely fortunate that Bryan Murray left him a number of good pieces in Anaheim.

Though to Burke's credit, he at least dumped Fedorov and rebuilt the Ducks defence.

Of course, he was fortunate Murray left him the assets to acquire Pronger, for example.

I'm not sure why you believe running a multimillion dollar sports franchise is the equivalent of starting a small business...

Avatar
#25 NM00
October 02 2013, 06:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Peachy

"We're comparing GMs, not goaltenders. Specifically, we're comparing Canuck GMs, not goaltenders between teams."

Obviously you didn't understand the analogy...

Is Ray Shero a better GM than David Poile because of the W-L record?

"If Gillis isn't the best, who is? And by what metric, and why is that metric more valid than wins?"

Reread the original (and unsubstantiated claim): Gillis is "clearly the best GM the team has ever had".

"My point is only that, by reasonable measures, dan's claim that Gillis is the best GM in Canucks history stands on solid ground."

Based on what you've said so far, you seem to believe that Dan's claim stands on solid ground purely based on the W-L record.

Of course, you are relying on fallacious reasoning to arrive at this "solid ground"...

Avatar
#26 Nateb123
October 02 2013, 07:24PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props
NM00 wrote:

If the Canucks were doing the "right thing", there would have been cap space to get a proven commodity.

Or the spot would have been claimed by Cody Hodgson, Jordan Schroeder, Brendan Gaunce or Bo Horvat...

The fact that they are, once again, trying to catch lightning in a bottle is evidence that they have been and continue to be doing the wrong thing.

Sadly, management skill is not a common attribute amongst the groupthink apologists...

Possibly the most oblivious statement ever made about a cap team in a year when the cap dropped 6 million.

Avatar
#27 Peachy
October 02 2013, 08:41PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

"We're comparing GMs, not goaltenders. Specifically, we're comparing Canuck GMs, not goaltenders between teams."

Obviously you didn't understand the analogy...

Is Ray Shero a better GM than David Poile because of the W-L record?

"If Gillis isn't the best, who is? And by what metric, and why is that metric more valid than wins?"

Reread the original (and unsubstantiated claim): Gillis is "clearly the best GM the team has ever had".

"My point is only that, by reasonable measures, dan's claim that Gillis is the best GM in Canucks history stands on solid ground."

Based on what you've said so far, you seem to believe that Dan's claim stands on solid ground purely based on the W-L record.

Of course, you are relying on fallacious reasoning to arrive at this "solid ground"...

There's no fallacy in play here.

Propose a method and accompanying metric by which Canuck GMs can be evaluated relative to each other. Tell me who is the best by that metric, and ideally where Gillis ranks.

Then tell me why that metric is better than what's been presented.

You're the one using apples-to-spaceships comparisons and waving your hands in the air. Goalies are individuals on a team and responsible chiefly for stopping pucks, but a GM's fundamental responsibility is strategic team performance.

Wins evaluate team performance.

Avatar
#28 NM00
October 02 2013, 09:21PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Nateb123

The salary cap also dropped for Chicago, St Louis, LA, San Jose, Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, New York, Washington and Ottawa.

Just to name ten.

The fact that management overextended itself by jumping the market on Burrows & Higgins necessitated dumping two big ticket items (Ballard & Schneider) simply to be cap compliant.

Or perhaps it's simply because Gary Bettman hates Vancouver...

Avatar
#29 NM00
October 02 2013, 09:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Peachy

Your concept on how to evaluate a GM is far too reductive.

Which is why I suspect you refuse to compare the records of Shero & Poile.

Or Billy Beane and Brian Cashman I'm guessing.

But let me indulge you.

The best Canucks GM is the one who contributed the greatest number of players to the top of the 2010-2011 team

Burke (Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Bieksa)

Nonis (Burrows, Raymond, Edler, Luongo)

Gillis (Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Samuelsson)

Looks like it's a tie between Burke & Nonis...

Avatar
#30 Peachy
October 02 2013, 09:58PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

Your concept on how to evaluate a GM is far too reductive.

Which is why I suspect you refuse to compare the records of Shero & Poile.

Or Billy Beane and Brian Cashman I'm guessing.

But let me indulge you.

The best Canucks GM is the one who contributed the greatest number of players to the top of the 2010-2011 team

Burke (Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Bieksa)

Nonis (Burrows, Raymond, Edler, Luongo)

Gillis (Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Samuelsson)

Looks like it's a tie between Burke & Nonis...

*sigh*

Where does Pat Quinn rank then? Given that he took the helm in 1987, I suspect that 1994 team (analogous to the 2011 team you describe) he put together contained almost entirely talent he acquired. I'll confess to not having the numbers in front of me, but certainly all of the "big pieces" were acquired by him.

Pat Quinn is best by your measure. Okay. I would argue that your metric results in a crappy choice for best Canucks GM of all time, but sure, Pat Quinn it is.

Talent acquisition is but one "skill" that a GM has. Some others, in no particular order of importance:

Talent retention; Coaching staff selection (keep in mind that this is a decision made every year, not just upon hiring); Hockey operations.

Acquisition fails to account for the effects of any of those skills, all of which clearly impact performance.

Provide a metric by which GMs can be evaluated, and that accounts for the complete skillset of a GM.

Again, don't confuse my argument with one stating that Gillis is the best GM in the NHL.

Avatar
#31 Matt
October 02 2013, 10:30PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props

I don't know why you guys engage with NM00's Gillis-bashing. You're not going to change his mind. You're just giving him positive reinforcement when you argue with him.

Avatar
#32 Nateb123
October 02 2013, 10:35PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

The salary cap also dropped for Chicago, St Louis, LA, San Jose, Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, New York, Washington and Ottawa.

Just to name ten.

The fact that management overextended itself by jumping the market on Burrows & Higgins necessitated dumping two big ticket items (Ballard & Schneider) simply to be cap compliant.

Or perhaps it's simply because Gary Bettman hates Vancouver...

Are you high? Do you even know what is a cap team and what isn't?

The Blues had 18 million in cap space last year. The Sens had 17 million. The Wings and Kings had 8 million.

Yeah, weirdly these teams had room to pick up assets. Such genius work by their GMs to run organizations too broke to run for long even at their current cap hits. And even they couldn't just grab better players, they had to give up significant pieces to do it: Brunner, Perron, McDonald, Scuderi, Penner, Gagner, Alfredsson, Silfverberg, Gonchar. But yeah, MG did awful letting Ballard, Raymond, Lappy and Rental Roy go.

Avatar
#33 Peachy
October 02 2013, 10:36PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props
Matt wrote:

I don't know why you guys engage with NM00's Gillis-bashing. You're not going to change his mind. You're just giving him positive reinforcement when you argue with him.

*hangs head in shame*

Avatar
#34 Matt
October 02 2013, 10:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Back to the topic at hand:

I don't understand why the team didn't pick up Jussi Jokinen on waivers last year. He had a bit of a down year but he's a great two-way player with legitimate offensive upside. And they could have kept Kevin in the system (or traded him later for something else). I was flabbergasted when Jokinen cleared waivers.

Avatar
#35 Peachy
October 02 2013, 11:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Matt wrote:

Back to the topic at hand:

I don't understand why the team didn't pick up Jussi Jokinen on waivers last year. He had a bit of a down year but he's a great two-way player with legitimate offensive upside. And they could have kept Kevin in the system (or traded him later for something else). I was flabbergasted when Jokinen cleared waivers.

His cap hit this season. Pure and simple. Too much risk for a team as close to the cap as the Canucks are.

And keep in mind that players like Jussi are no longer valued relative to their ability to play hockey. They're valued relative to their ability to play hockey relative to their contracts.

This is the same reason that Grabovski cleared.

The other interesting thing is that the Sedins proved last year that they don't need to be given preferential deployment in order to dominate. Whether they can continue to do so is in question, but at least opens the door to the idea of a less defensively-oriented 3C.

Avatar
#36 Matt
October 02 2013, 11:17PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
Peachy wrote:

His cap hit this season. Pure and simple. Too much risk for a team as close to the cap as the Canucks are.

And keep in mind that players like Jussi are no longer valued relative to their ability to play hockey. They're valued relative to their ability to play hockey relative to their contracts.

This is the same reason that Grabovski cleared.

The other interesting thing is that the Sedins proved last year that they don't need to be given preferential deployment in order to dominate. Whether they can continue to do so is in question, but at least opens the door to the idea of a less defensively-oriented 3C.

His cap hit was $3 million.

Avatar
#37 NM00
October 02 2013, 11:18PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props
Nateb123 wrote:

Are you high? Do you even know what is a cap team and what isn't?

The Blues had 18 million in cap space last year. The Sens had 17 million. The Wings and Kings had 8 million.

Yeah, weirdly these teams had room to pick up assets. Such genius work by their GMs to run organizations too broke to run for long even at their current cap hits. And even they couldn't just grab better players, they had to give up significant pieces to do it: Brunner, Perron, McDonald, Scuderi, Penner, Gagner, Alfredsson, Silfverberg, Gonchar. But yeah, MG did awful letting Ballard, Raymond, Lappy and Rental Roy go.

Just so I have this clear...

Cap teams like Vancouver have it harder than payroll teams like Ottawa?

Spending more money makes it harder to win?

Right...

Avatar
#38 NM00
October 02 2013, 11:22PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props

@Peachy

"Provide a metric by which GMs can be evaluated, and that accounts for the complete skillset of a GM."

Why do you keep asking for this?

We both know one does not exist which is why I defer to the transaction record for something tangible

"Talent retention; Coaching staff selection (keep in mind that this is a decision made every year, not just upon hiring); Hockey operations.

Acquisition fails to account for the effects of any of those skills, all of which clearly impact performance."

And a goaltender's ability to give his team "confidence" is not accounted for by save percentage.

Stick to the tangible instead of implying that Gillis is the best W-L wizard in Canucks management history...

Avatar
#39 NM00
October 02 2013, 11:29PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props
Matt wrote:

I don't know why you guys engage with NM00's Gillis-bashing. You're not going to change his mind. You're just giving him positive reinforcement when you argue with him.

I'm more than willing to have my mind changed by a logical argument.

Not that Peachy et al are providing one...

Hypothetically, let's say the Canucks don't win a playoff round in the next 3 years.

However, Gillis' transaction record markedly improves.

The lack of playoff wins would have the majority of the fanbase calling for his head.

I, on the other hand, would be pushing to keep Gillis based on a significantly improved transaction record...

Avatar
#40 Nateb123
October 03 2013, 12:26AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

Just so I have this clear...

Cap teams like Vancouver have it harder than payroll teams like Ottawa?

Spending more money makes it harder to win?

Right...

Have some dignity. Your point was that MG didn't do his job because other teams gained assets in the offseason despite the cap coming down. The teams you listed all either didn't get better or gave up significant assets and were already nowhere NEAR the cap. That's all there is too this. Do you have a rebuttal of some sort or is this silly evasion all you've got when facts come crashing through your delusions?

Avatar
#41 BradB
October 03 2013, 12:34AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props

@NM00, @Peachy - guys, don't ever stop. Seriously. For quite a while NM00 got slammed because he isn't a rabid homer - but IMHO NM00 posts some of the most thought out and statistically backed up posts on here. Now that Peachy is here to articulately fire back, the CanucksArmy threads are well worth reading & not just CBC fan boy crap.

CanucksArmy should have you two write Crossfire/Counter-point blogs.

tl;dr @NM00 & @Peachy - you guys make reading the comments worthwhile & are a value add-here.

Avatar
#42 Ruprecht
October 03 2013, 09:52AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props
BradB wrote:

@NM00, @Peachy - guys, don't ever stop. Seriously. For quite a while NM00 got slammed because he isn't a rabid homer - but IMHO NM00 posts some of the most thought out and statistically backed up posts on here. Now that Peachy is here to articulately fire back, the CanucksArmy threads are well worth reading & not just CBC fan boy crap.

CanucksArmy should have you two write Crossfire/Counter-point blogs.

tl;dr @NM00 & @Peachy - you guys make reading the comments worthwhile & are a value add-here.

Never in my life would I have ever thought a guy would enjoy reading soooo much analysis, rhetoric and thread jacking, just to keep coming back to the singular point...Gillis Sucks. You sir, made my morning. Keep reading for reading's sake. It's a nice day, I think I'll do something more productive like see how long I can get my dog to chase it's own tail.

We still have some cap room for a 3rd line Center, I'm happy about that. Nobody was billing the Malhotra move as a franchise saver at the time, nobody. People get nostalgic, but the guy was getting paid a lot of money to be a 1 dimensional player (there I said it). If you look at most teams with good third lines, there's at least some offensive upside. I liked Malhotra, but after the injury there just wasn't any beef left in his game. Everybody's time comes. What sucked was watching Gillis' contingency plan unfurl. I'm sure NM00 can take it from here...."Come on Pup, we're going outside."

Avatar
#43 NM00
October 03 2013, 10:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Nateb123

"Your point was that MG didn't do his job because other teams gained assets in the offseason despite the cap coming down."

Was that my point...

On an annual basis, the Canucks have the highest (salary cap) payroll in the league (tied with a number of other teams, of course).

The salary cap went down for all 30 teams...

Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

"The teams you listed all either didn't get better or gave up significant assets and were already nowhere NEAR the cap."

1. The teams I listed that didn't "get better" didn't have to get better to keep their contention windows open.

2. Why would you not give credit to management teams (such as the ones in St Louis & Ottawa) that either maintained flexibility prior to the cap reduction or are not priveleged enough to spend with the big boys?

Why does Gillis get a free pass for overextending himself?

"Do you have a rebuttal of some sort or is this silly evasion all you've got when facts come crashing through your delusions?"

An excellent attempt at rhetoric...

Avatar
#44 Senrik Hedin
October 03 2013, 12:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

Can we please just agree to disagree about Mike Gillis and move on. The man's doing his job which is to please the Aquilinis. Would rather talk about the substance of the posts and not about Mike Gillis in every other post here. kthxbye.

Avatar
#45 GeezMoney
October 03 2013, 02:26PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Senrik Hedin wrote:

Can we please just agree to disagree about Mike Gillis and move on. The man's doing his job which is to please the Aquilinis. Would rather talk about the substance of the posts and not about Mike Gillis in every other post here. kthxbye.

Agreed.

Comments are closed for this article.