Vancouver Canucks Free Agency Review
The Canucks made a big splash in free agency, but now they're out of money and still have holes to fill. There aren't a lot of big mistakes here, but when taken as a whole, Mike Gillis has gotten himself into a pickle. After the jump, I'll look at each of his moves individually and then take a look at the big picture.
Individual Transactions
Traded the 25th overall pick in 2011, Michael Grabner, and Steve Bernier to the Florida Panthers for D Keith Ballard and F Victor Oreskovich - I don't think the Canucks gave up much in this deal in terms of what's listed above. In my preview I said it would be a good thing to move Bernier along; he just isn't worth $2M. I tend to agree with Gabe Desjardins that Michael Grabner won't turn into a strong NHL player (his calling card is offense and he just doesn't have great AHL numbers), so there's little lost there. And the 25th overall pick will turn into a truly useful player only about a quarter of the time, so turning that selection into a good player you have under control for five seasons is a very good deal. Or at least, it's a good deal so long as the guy you've acquired is worth his contract. Is that true of Keith Ballard? I think it's close. Ballard is a guy who has played tough minutes in both Phoenix and Florida in two of the last three seasons (the exception being his first year with the Panthers), but he hasn't had a great deal of success in that role. His first year in Phoenix was passable (Corsi of -7.5/60 but positive goal differential), but last season he was beat up pretty badly (-17.85/60 Corsi suggests that he was having trouble moving the puck out of his own end against good players). In my view, he's likely best suited to starting the season on the second pairing and filling in on the first in case of injury. If your team is building a defense without a clear number one, then Ballard at $4.2M can make sense, especially if you think the cap is only going up (and that looks to be the case). Ballard has also very durable thus far in his career having played all 82 games in four of five seasons, something both Vancouver fans and management will appreciate. Oreskovich is a throw-in. He'd actually retired from hockey for a couple of years and then came back just last season to score six points in fifty games with the Panthers. He doesn't add any value over other freely available options. In the end, I think this is an okay deal for the Canucks. The biggest asset they gave up was cap space and, in my opinion, it's costly. I think they needed a forward more than they needed a defenseman and although Ballard's contract isn't bad, it's not good enough value to tempt me to take money allotted for forwards and move it onto the blueline.
Signed F Manny Malhotra to a one-way contract for three years at $2,500,000 per year - I really like this deal for the Cancuks because Malhotra is exactly the kind of player they need. Malhotra's role in the last few seasons has been taking faceoffs in the defensive zone against decent or good competition and then getting that puck moving back in the right direction. Over the last three years he's had 58.1% (2007-08), 56.6% (2008-09) and 54.7% (2009-10) of his end-zone starts in the defensive zone. Both his Corsi and his goal differential have been positive each time, culminating last season when he the competition wasn't quite as tough and the end-zone ratio not quite as onerous - he led the Sharks in goal differential. On top of that, he's a good penalty killer and one of the best faceoff-men in the entire league. This is a significant value contract for any team, but particularly for the Canucks who are well-situated to maximize Malhotra's skill-set. With Kesler on one line and Malhotra on another, the puck will be pushed up the ice with regularity and the Sedins will be right there to take advantage. This is a fantastic deal for Vancouver.
Signed F Joel Perrault to a one-way contract for one year at $510,000 per year - I don't really understand the logic behind giving Joel Perrault a one-way deal. Perrault has barely played in the NHL in each of the last two seasons and his numbers in the AHL over that time - 85 points in 93 games - are nothing to get excited about considering he was already in his mid-twenties. If the Canucks are willing to send him to Manitoba, as I expect they are, then this signing doesn't hurt much because it's just one more depth player who can fill in on the big club when needed. The one-way contract should help him to earn a roster spot out of camp as the 13th or 14th forward.
Signed F Jeff Tambellini to a two-way contract for one year at $500,000 per year - Tambellini is a solid depth signing who will likely be competing for the last one or two hypothetical roster spots available at Canucks' camp with players like Joel Perrault, Victor Oreskovich, Cody Hodgson, Sergei Shirokov, Alexandre Bolduc, and Jordan Schroeder. If this spot exists, it means that the Canucks didn't need to take a player back for one of their defenders, which likely means that the Canucks will probably be looking for this last spot to go to a player capable of playing top nine minutes. In my view that would seem to give Schroeder (or Hodgson if he converts to wing) the inside track. Tambellini has outstanding numbers in the AHL (194 points in 169 games) but he hasn't been able to produce offense in the NHL with only 46 points in 180 NHL games. That's a lot of opportunity. A guy like Martin St. Pierre, for example, has similar AHL totals, but only 38 games in the show. For Tambellini to win this spot, he'll need to significantly outplay the younger guys who haven't gotten their shot, unless of course the Canucks stay tight to the cap at which point his league minimum salary becomes his very best friend. If Tambellini doesn't make the Canucks, he'll be a fine player with the Moose and will likely earn a call-up at some point during the year.
Signed D Dan Hamhuis to a one-way contract for six years at $4,500,000 per year - Dan Hamhuis is a player who provides value by playing tough minutes at even strength and a big role on the penalty kill. In Nashville, the even strength role was taken over by Shea Weber and Ryan Suter this season, so it made sense for the Predators to let Hamhuis walk away. But in 2008-09 and 2007-08, Hamhuis was trusted with all of the most difficult assignments and was asked to start in his own zone a lot of the time. Although Hamhuis was minimally outshot in both of those seasons, I think it's fair to say that he did the job well. When his responsibilities lessened in terms of competition, Hamhuis outshot his opponents and posted a very impressive zone shift (46.4% of end-zone starts were in the offensive zone, compared to 52.4% of end-zone finishes). Hamhuis may not have been taking on the toughs, but he was certainly helping his team win. Penalty killing is always tricky to evaluate because, looking at the numbers we have, it always seems to be more a "sum of its parts" kind of thing. In 2008-09, all of the regular Nashville defenders had a shots against rate between 30.0/60 and 36.0/60. In 2009-10, they were all between 41.0/60 and 50.0/60. Hamhuis himself went from a rate of 35.9/60 to 46.6/60, which is a huge change, but he himself probably didn't do that much differently. Some of the personnel were swapped out for new guys and, bam, the guys you had that were doing well before, aren't doing so well anymore. Basically, I'm saying that I have no idea how good Hamhuis is on the PK. I do know that, for at least the last three seasons, he's been one of the leaders in PK ice time with the Predators and that their PK has been very good in two of those seasons and very bad in the other. As for the contract itself, it takes Hamhuis to age thirty-three, which is a very nice cut-off point for the Canucks since that's right around the time defensemen start to fall off a cliff.
Signed F Alexandre Bolduc to a two-way contract for one year at $500,000 per year - Bolduc is in the same spot as Tambellini but without the offensive pedigree in the AHL, so I don't really like his chances. If the Canucks move out a couple of defenders (they have nine on the roster right now), it could create an extra forward spot, but I doubt that's going to happen. As such, Bolduc looks to be destined for Manitoba.
Signed D Shane O'Brien to a one-way contract for one year at $1,600,000 per year - Before this signing I had always thought of Shane O'Brien as a bit of a dummy, but he made a very good decision when he signed his qualifying offer. In some ways, I can understand why Mike Gillis decided to give him that chance. The Canucks hadn't yet signed Dan Hamhuis and didn't know if they'd be able to get a top quality defender in free agency. If O'Brien could have been counted on as the Canucks' fourth defenseman, this would make sense. However, O'Brien was already fifth at best among the guys already under contract and, more importantly, he flat-out sucks. He plays pretty soft minutes and takes oodles of penalties while doing it. Last year, his penalty differential (taken v. drawn) improved from -1.7/60 in 2008-09, the second worst rate in the league among regular defensemen, to -1.1/60, good enough to tie for sixth from the bottom. That's a pretty terrible starting point, and considering the fact that O'Brien doesn't do much else well, I fell confident in saying that he has negative value. As such, there was no reason for the Canucks to want him back at all, and that makes giving him a qualifying offer a pretty big mistake. Using $1.6M in cap space to pay a guy with negative value is not a good way to build a contender. I'm sure Gillis is trying to unload him as we speak (good luck with that).
Signed F Tanner Glass to a one-way contract for one year at $625,000 per year - As I said above, the Canucks chose to go a different way than I would have, making significant upgrades on defense and only minor upgrades at forward. Given that decision, bringing back Glass at close to the league minimum makes some sense. Glass had a tough gig last year, taking on a huge amount of defensive zone draws with poor teammates for most of the season. The goal differential ended up being positive, which would normally have been impressive, but in this case, Glass was still getting wildly outshot and was being rescued by a .953 save percentage behind him. I don't expect he'll be posting a positive differential again this season, but as a depth forward, they could certainly do worse than a big physical player who has some experience in a challenging role.
Signed G Tyler Weiman to a two-way contract for one year at $500,000 per year - With Cory Schneider moving up to the Canucks in 2010-11 the Canucks will need a new goaltender for the Manitoba Moose. Weiman is a solid choice for that role, having been an AHL starter for the last four years. In the last two years, he's put up save percentages of .915 and .912 and can likely be relied upon for a steady performance. He'll be in competition for the starting job with Swedish netminder Eddie Lack.
The Big Picture
The cap has been announced at $59.4M, but I like to use $59M is a guideline because most teams will start the year with at least a small amount of wiggle room. Here's the chart I've used before:
Top 3 Forwards - 27.5% or $16,225,000
Middle 6 Forwards - 20.0% or $11,800,000
Top 4 Defenders - 27.5% or $16,225,000
Goaltending - 10.0% or $5,900,000
Bottom 8 Players - 15.0% or $8,850,000
And here it is again with the players the Canucks have signed:
Top 3 Forwards - Sedin, Sedin, Kesler - 29.2% or $17,200,000
Middle 6 Forwards - Samuelsson, Burrows, Malhotra, ???, ???, ??? - 11.9% or $7,000,000
Top 4 Defenders - Hamhuis, Salo, Ballard, Edler - 26.2% or $15,450,000
Goaltending - Luongo, Schneider - 10.6% or $6,233,333
Bottom 8 Players - Rome, Alberts, O'Brien, Ehrhoff, Bieksa, Hordichuk, Rypien, Glass - 20.7% or $12,200,000
Honestly, this is a bit of a mess. The Canucks may not be overspending on "top four defensemen" but they're certainly overspending on defensemen in general. Right now, they've got nine for a total cap cost of $25.7M or 43.6% of their budget. Now, there are teams who do this, but they usually have at least one really top notch guy, someone like Chris Pronger or Zdeno Chara. The Canucks don't. They also don't have any money left. $0.8M isn't enough to fill three small holes, let alone three big ones. When things shake out, it's likely that two of the spots will be filled by Jannik Hansen and Mason Raymond. I'll estimate that cost at $3.5M, which leaves $2.7M to clear away plus enough to fill one more spot. That player may well be a new acquisition. It's easy enough to say that Gillis should trade O'Brien and Bieksa without taking any money back, but that's not easy to do even when the players you're trading are actually good. In the end, he may end up needing to include a carrot and take an undesirable body back in order to make things work. A scenario like O'Brien, Bieksa, Hordichuk and Hodgson (or another "A" level prospect) to New Jersey for Dainius Zubrus would likely be something that would work, though even that would leave a bit more work to do and probably isn't a good decision for the long-term. The other option is just to send the two defenders to the minors ($5.35M in savings) or buy them out ($3.4M in savings). That's the funny thing about this salary-capped NHL - if you've spent your way into a problem, you can always spend your way out!
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well done Scott. I like the breakdowns on the players, but maybe not the conclusions on several.
It is always fun to do these things now, and then see the rosters come September.
Tambellini- signed with barely discussing numbers. I agree on him, but think he might actually make the roster. The same as Oreskovich. He probably makes the 4th line. Perrault is probably one of those guys making the 105K in the AHL…and will be a call up.
Of the bottom guys, Hordichuk is probably gone…and there is room for movement and whatnot there for the youngins. When he signed Malholtra, one of the first things he discussed with him is also playing wing. If Hodgson can make the team ( and they will give him every chance ), they probably interchange from wing to centre 5 on 5. Schroeder could be an option with Burrows maybe starting the season on the IR.
I guess the only real differing opinion is on the defense. Not so much on your breakdown of the new guys, but the other two.
OBrein is a work in progress, but this past year was one of his better ones. His penalties were way down, and when he was protected on his 3rd line minutes, did quite well. In the second half, he did better with increased time due to injury, even if the numbers don’t bear it out as much. He was put in different positions with the loss of our #1 shutdown guy in Mitchell.
Bieksa won’t be too difficult to trade, I would think. In the last year of his contract, and with something to prove, he can definitely find a spot on the blue lines of teams that either missed out on the FAs, or are looking for more on the blue line. Supposedly there were 10 teams calling as soon as we got Hamhuis and Ballard. There does seem to be interest…with rumors of both SJ and Columbus interested.
Thanks for the breakdown. I enjoyed the read.
PS…your team looks like things are going to be fast this year huh? Are both Eberle and Hall going to make the team, do you think?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Bieksa moved, I just don’t think teams will want him without moving some cash back the other way. Certainly the Sharks can’t afford it. The BJ’s probably shouldn’t but they also picked up Ethan Moreau off of waivers, so who knows what they might do.
As for Malhotra, it seems like a mistake to take him away from center. If the Canucks really want Hodgson to start the year playing center, there’s no harm in having take 4C duties. With Malhotra and Kesler, Vigneault should be able to protect his fourth line as well as the Sedins (for different reasons of course)
The thing with O’Brien is that his penalties were way down and he was still one of the worst in the league (in terms of differential). And that’s taking on the easy minutes. The guy has a long way to go before he’s worth anything close to the $1.6M he’s signed for.
And the Oilers will probably be bad but fun to watch. I do think all of Eberle, Hall and Paajarvi will make the team and I guess we’ll see if that ends up being a good idea.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 15, 2010 10:24 PM MDT up reply actions
Ummm..no Scott…that is where you are wrong. In a world where defensemen that are comparable to Bieksa in talent anyhow, are commanding the dollars they did, Bieksa is easily a desirable asset.
Without taking money back? Well, this isn’t someone that sucks offensively. Even with a bad year least year he did alright, and is usually good for around 10 goals or more, and 40 points. Couple that with truculence and the ability to jump into the play, and its easy to see why Gillis is getting calls.
He only has one year left on that deal anyhow. One year at 3.75, for the package that Bieksa brings, is as desirable to some GMs as Kaberle. Kaberle may be the better PP QB, but he can’t stand up for a talented player and beat down an offender, nor does he throw any big hits.
Its all subjective, and I do expect an Oiler fan to have a jaded view of the team, but thats OK. This is an Oiler thread! ;-)
As for SOB, he’ll get moved. 1.6 is not bad for him. personally, if we can afford it, I’d keep him. He has progressed, and together with Rome would be great 6-7 guys. We can get rid of Alberts as well…for a bag of pucks or something.
The whole Hodgson/Malholtra, who plays centre thing is not really a thing. It will be situational. Manny would take all the big draws, and if he gets thrown, Cody is there. Or, the opposite as the situation warrants.
Sum…why? If the guy is as talented as advertised, what’s wrong with having a young gun? ( or do the Oilers get to be the only team with young talent? ;-) Both Hodgson and Schroeder will be given every chance to make the big club, but being called up a few times from Manitoba as injury replacements …or getting better in the AHL if one or the other doesn’t make the club..
Works for me. For what it’s worth, the GM made sure to say several times so far this offseason that young guys will get “every chance to win a spot. If they are good enough to make the team, we will find a spot for them.”
I’m convinced that if Gillis had a deal on the table that could move Bieksa for real non-money assets (i.e. a 2nd rounder or better), he’d already be gone. I just don’t see what’s so desirable about Bieksa. He’s had quite a few injuries and he’s been a minus player each of the last two years playing pretty sheltered minutes (second pairing difficulty + one of the better zonestart ratios among regular D each of the last two years). That’s pretty brutal for a guy making $3.75M. Denis Grebeshkov didn’t have any takers at $3.15M at the draft and his last two seasons look very similar to Bieksa’s except that more of Grebeshkov’s offense came at EV which is, IMO, more valuable. Even the “he only has one more year” stuff seems to imply that his contract is bad. If it was a good contract, only having one year wouldn’t be a feature.
As for O’Brien, I’m pretty confident that he’s worse than replacement level because of the penalties. If the choice is between O’Brien and Aaron Rome for the sixth spot, I think a team would be better off playing Rome. It’s very difficult for a guy playing third pairing minutes to make up the amount of value O’Brien gives away with the penalties.
I don’t think I’m saying this “because I’m an Oiler fan” though. I really like a lot of the Canucks’ defenders. It’s really just Bieksa and O’Brien that I think are really poor relative to their wage. If the Canucks were trying to move one of the other “top five” guys, I think they’d be able to without taking cash back. I can see why Gillis wouldn’t want to though.
As for the young guys, if they can move some salary out, I think they have to be favoured to win a job. The Canucks need cheap offensive talent and the guys best positioned to provide that are Schroeder and Hodgson.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 16, 2010 12:10 AM MDT up reply actions
Sure Scott. Let’s just agree to disagree about SOB and Bieksa.
I am pretty convinced that most deals are on hold until Kovy gets signed is all.
With a couple teams in, and all that Cap space being talked about, it sounds like (,from reading the various places where these things are discussed, as well as the news reports ( The Columbus Dispatch reported about a week or so ago that Bieksa was involved with Filatov coming back… I KNOW! But that’s what they said…)…that with all that, a lot of things are being talked about as plan B until the teams that are in ( NJ and LA ), and the other teams that think they can get him for a 1-2 year deal for that “Hossa” thing…its no wonder that no deals are going down right now.
Tell you what, I ’ll come back when they inevitable deal gets made, and we can find something to talk about in the long days of summer…Oilers fan.
;-)
and I do expect an Oiler fan to have a jaded view of the team, but thats OK. This is an Oiler thread! ;-)
If there is anyone whose view is not jaded, Its Scott
Scott may know his stuff, but everyone falls victim to that practice.
We all view our home team in a positive light. Mainly because of the emotional investment.
It’s all good, I wasn’t calling him a homer anyhow…
so dont you think that might ve happening to you regarding your views on SOB and Bieksa? And scott is an ourside viewer giving an independent analysis!
God…relax. Every hockey discussion doesn’t have to denigrate into trying to win the conversation.
No one is judging Scott. I believe I commended him before anything else.
As for my views on Bieksa and SOB, they are far more accurate that believes they would be put on waivers.
There has been interest in both of them…regardless of what you or anyone else might think.
His “independent analysis” does not view either one of them in at all an accurate light. And stats are only one way of looking at hockey. I choose to use them as a guide, but not at the expense of what I see on the ice form watching, playing, and even coaching and reffing in 40+ years. Corsi and GA/60 are just tools.
Believe what you want. One ( probably Bieksa) will be moved by the end of summer…probably for a pick and a prospect. But to say that a player like Bieksa ( 40 points twice, a threat on the PP, fights, plays decent defense ) is a veteran in the NHL that has garnered far too much interest to be put on waivers.
Two D-men are probably gone...
It’s Bieksa + one of Rome, Alberts or O’Brien, I’m guessing, with minor league players and picks in return. That feels viable, at least to start the year. Then you never know. The injury trouble the Canucks encountered last year actually helped with cap space during the regular season, that might happen again this year.
One small correction: I think Ehrhoff is ahead of Salo in the depth chart. That’s one aspect I’m really psyched about—the Canucks’ top six D are among the best in the league. No stand outs, but when Salo is your #5 guy, you’re in good shape.
I don’t think the Canucks will be able to move those guys, Rome excepted but Bieksa in particular, without taking some cash back. None of them are worth what they’re making, so they’ll be difficult to move. I suspect it’ll be the Canucks including the better picks and prospects if there’s no money coming back to them.
I put Salo ahead of Ehrhoff because Salo was used for tough minutes last year and I suspect he’ll be partnered with Hamhuis. I could be wrong though.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 15, 2010 10:18 PM MDT up reply actions
I think you're underestimating the market for offensive defensemen
Look at the ridiculous contract Gonchar got, or the ones Bouwmeester and Campbell have, or how Vancouver had to take on Lukowich’s contract to get Erhoff last summer. Offensive defensemen are somewhat irrationally prized commodities by many GMs. Bieksa does have some upside, what with his career having been interrupted by two freak injuries, and I imagine he’d have made at least $3.5M were he to have signed a 1-year deal on the open market this summer. Some GM will take a gamble on him if the Canucks offer him for free.
In terms of cap number, Bieksa is currently tied for 44th among defensemen. There are sixty defensemen who will play on a top pairing this season and I’d be willing to bet that Bieksa isn’t going to be one of them. Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t contracts worse than his (the Campbell contract you mentioned as a for instance), but I have a hard time believing Bieksa is seen as good value. Maybe someone will take him for nothing, or maybe, like Sheldon Souray, he would just pass through waivers even though “there are talks” with other teams about a trade.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 16, 2010 12:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Market Depression?
I wonder if what you are describing, Scott, is similar to that Gabe Desjardins has claimed for NHL goalies, but here for defensemen. Bieksa was signed by Nonis in the heady days when the cap was going up quickly, and when yugret’s description of the premium GMs’ put on “puck-moving defensemen” was probably true. Jovo had signed for 7 million, for example. GMs seemed to think (or at least some) that a longer contract would pay off in the future, since it looked like the FA “frenzy” would occur every summer, continually driving up the price. But now, post-Lehmann Bros, suddenly the cap is moving slowly, and GMs are evaluating players carefully.
I guess Gillis is hoping that the 50% of GMs who still like “seen him good” evaluations might be tempted by Bieksa’s and O’Brien’s style and size (after all, Staios got moved). But I wouldn’t be surprised to see either one if not both hit the waiver wire at the end of the summer.
I agree with your analysis also, Scott, that Vancouver’s strategy seems to be continuing to put out Kesler and now Malhotra against 1st and 2nd liners, and trying to get the Sedins against anyone and everyone else. It’s pretty clear that Hodgson (most probably) and Schroeder or Shirokov will make it and play third line minutes with Malhotra protecting their asses.
That would be kind of an awful situation for the kids (and Malhotra). Constantly starting in your own end is a tough place for any rookie to be. I was actually thinking that only one of them would make it, and immediately be thrust onto a line with the Sedins. Schroeder is probably the best fit for that, but I could see them pumping up Shirokov really nicely for a trade too. That would leave Burrows to play some (much, much, much) tougher minutes with Kesler and Raymond, and Malhotra to play with Samuelsson and either Hansen or New Guy. I figure those two groups would be better equipped to take the tough time (and it would be funny to see what happens when Burrows is scoring at half of last year’s pace, but still helping the team win).
As to free agency, there’s generally been a lot less free spending in the last couple of years on defensemen. There were fifteen contracts with a cap hit of $3.75M or more cap given out from June to September of 2008 (Meszaros, Bouwmeester, Wideman, Blake, Orpik, Hainsey, Pitkanen, Streit, Redden, Rozsival, Commodore, Campbell, Stuart, Green, and Liles). Over the next two summers combined, there have only been eleven (Beauchemin, Komisarek, Spacek, Niedermayer, Bouwmeester, Gonchar, Michalek, Volchenkov, Martin, Hamhuis, and Kubina). Some of that probably has to do with who’s been available, but I think some of it is a real tightening in the market due to the fact that there’s been less new money to spend in each of the last two years.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 16, 2010 9:49 AM MDT up reply actions

by 































