CANUCKS SIGN UFA JASON GARRISON

[Zedlee]

It seems counter-intuitive, but Schultz will be an RFA after the 2 years are up.

Ok to heck with him then. Interesting...thx for the info.

[Strangelove]

Darren Dreger Darren Dreger ?@DarrenDreger

6 years, $4.6 aav for Garrison in Van.

Is there an NTC? NMC?

Capgeek shows a full NTC.

Are you sure about that Dave?

When you hover over Bieksa at capgeek it says "Full NTC".

When you hover over Garrison at capgeek it just says "NTC" (same as Hamhuis).

Not zat it matters mein herr, vee have vays to make zem vaive eh vot?

[Strangelove]

BTW the salary is structured for real-world dollars thusly:

2012-13 - $5,500,000
2013-14 - $6,500,000
2014-15 - $5,000,000
2015-16 - $4,500,000
2016-17 - $3,600,000
2017-18 - $2,500,000

Each year with a $4.6mil cap-hit of course.....

[Todd Bersnoozi]

I did a search on some highlights with him. He does have a bomb from the point and I noticed Campbell fed him alot for 1 timers. Hopefully one of Hammer, Bieska or Edler can feed him the puck in a similar fashion.

[Cornuck]

Nice one-timers from a few different angles - now we just have to raise his shot percentage.

[CaptainTrev]

I did a search on some highlights with him. He does have a bomb from the point and I noticed Campbell fed him alot for 1 timers. Hopefully one of Hammer, Bieska or Edler can feed him the puck in a similar fashion.

The encouraging thing is that for all the haters talk of how Campbell "made" Garrison last year, by far the nicest feeds in that vid were from other Panthers. The passes from Campbell came when there was all kinds of time and space.

Not to say that playing with Campbell didn't help Garrison, but judging by those highlites I'm confident that any of our top 4 guys can put it on a tee the same way.

[dbr]

Are you sure about that Dave?

When you hover over Bieksa at capgeek it says "Full NTC".

When you hover over Garrison at capgeek it just says "NTC" (same as Hamhuis).

Not zat it matters mein herr, vee have vays to make zem vaive eh vot?

Interesting. I've seen them show "limited NTC" for some players without specifying what those limits where so my assumption was that for any contract that just said "NTC" that meant there were no conditions or limitations on the clause.

Sounds like an area where they could use some more consistency (not that I have sky high expectations from a free service).

[clem]

From Canucks Army.

- the Canucks just made a significant commitment to Garrison (six years and a full no-trade clause)

Many expect Jason Garrison to regress this season, and they're correct, but maybe not about what direction that regression will be in.

If Jason Garrison had added 3 power-play tallies to his 7 even-strength goals this past season, he would've been worth about a million dollars less per season on the market. But he tallied 9 times on the power-play, second most among all defenseman behind only Shea Weber.

http://canucksarmy.com/2012/7/3/jason-garrison-the-brian-campbell-effect-and-regression?tw_p=twt

[FAN]

From Canucks Army.

If Jason Garrison had added 3 power-play tallies to his 7 even-strength goals this past season, he would've been worth about a million dollars less per season on the market. But he tallied 9 times on the power-play, second most among all defenseman behind only Shea Weber.

http://canucksarmy.com/2012/7/3/jason-garrison-the-brian-campbell-effect-and-regression?tw_p=twt

All things consider, that is such an irrelevant point. It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that 6 extra goals for a defenseman is a lot of production and the ability to score 10 goals in a season puts a defenseman in a different class. There are usually less than 25 Dmen who puts up 10 goals in every given season.

As we saw, teams were very much willing to hand out big dollars for shorter term contracts for top 4 Dmen. The reality was that Garrison had established himself as a top 4 shut-down Dman. He was worth $3.5M-4M based on his defensive ability. Saying that Garrison would have been worth about a million dollars less per season on the market had he scored 10 goals instead of 16 means meant that instead of commanding $5.25M+ on the open market he would command $4.25M-4.5M. The Canucks signed him at $4.6M rather than Ballard money as a consequence of Garrison scoring 16 instead of 10 goals.

[clem]

From Canucks Army.

If Jason Garrison had added 3 power-play tallies to his 7 even-strength goals this past season, he would've been worth about a million dollars less per season on the market. But he tallied 9 times on the power-play, second most among all defenseman behind only Shea Weber.

All things consider, that is such an irrelevant point. It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that 6 extra goals for a defenseman is a lot of production and the ability to score 10 goals in a season puts a defenseman in a different class. There are usually less than 25 Dmen who puts up 10 goals in every given season.

Some might call it obvious, but I wouldn’t call it irrelevant.

Garrison’s PP production will be a matter of interest this season.

[Benjo]

All this panicking about who will feed him sweet passes next season, it breaks my heart that we don't have the best passer in the game on our team.

[Lancer]

All this panicking about who will feed him sweet passes next season, it breaks my heart that we don't have the best passer in the game on our team.

+1

[FAN]

Some might call it obvious, but I wouldn’t call it irrelevant.

Garrison’s PP production will be a matter of interest this season.

It's irrelevant because Garrison would have commanded $4.25M-$4.5M based on his strong defensive play the past two seasons and his 10 goals this season (if we were to take away 6 of his PP goals). The Canucks signed him for $4.6M. So it's irrelevant because while Garrison would have commanded about a million less on the open market had he scored 6 less PP goals, whatever home-town discount he took would also have been less. So take away 6 PP goals and Garrison would have signed for Ballard type money instead of $4.6M. People like to fixate on Garrison's offensive totals, but the reality is that a 27-28 year old shut-down top 4 Dman of Garrison's calibre was worth at least $3.5M-4M to his team and could easily command $4M+ on the open market. Look at what Hamhuis got. If you consider the fact that Garrison is considered a notch below Hamhuis and the fact Hamhuis signed 2 years ago and you're looking at similar money even if Garrison was a 5+ goal 20+ point guy with a big PP shot.

[Uncle dans leg]

Garrison is great pick up considering he came for nothing and likely will have extra incentive to play his heart out for friends and family.
His salary is totally inconsequential considering:
A.-I don't have to pay it.
B.-The Canucks can afford it by all accounts.
C.-We got him for nothing.
Come on...look at that one timer. No stopping it to tee it up or bobbling bouncers, just hard and right on the net. Exactly what coaches want. Just because Brian "the wanker" Campbell was the guy who was setting them up doesn't mean Mr. Hart Trophy winning, assist factory Henrik Sedin cant do it... maybe even better for that matter.

[Topper]

From Canucks Army.

- the Canucks just made a significant commitment to Garrison (six years and a full no-trade clause)

Many expect Jason Garrison to regress this season, and they're correct, but maybe not about what direction that regression will be in.

If Jason Garrison had added 3 power-play tallies to his 7 even-strength goals this past season, he would've been worth about a million dollars less per season on the market. But he tallied 9 times on the power-play, second most among all defenseman behind only Shea Weber.

http://canucksarmy.com/2012/7/3/jason-garrison-the-brian-campbell-effect-and-regression?tw_p=twt

So if he was 67% worse on the PP he would have been cheaper.

Or

If he was a worse player and didn't get as much PP time, he would have been cheaper.

Then the question is, would he have been as an attractive FA target?
LOL. Gotta love the rocket science these clowns put into their advance stats.