Sedins stay in Vancouver

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 11:09 AM CDT in Free Agency Comment 18 comments

I would have bet considerable money on this happening:

After being drafted together in 1999 and playing their entire careers on the same club, Daniel and Henrik Sedin will continue that trend with the Vancouver Canucks. The brothers have signed a pair of five-year contacts, averaging $6.1 million a season.

And here was my take earlier on just how good the Sedins were this past season.

Those contracts, for $30.5-million, are fair value, and could even at some point be good value for the Canucks if (a) the salary cap rises significantly or (b) the Sedins continue to improve. They're still only 28 and have been top line players for only a couple years.

I think that, if Mike Gillis can grab an elite winger to play with them, we may see the Sedins climb the NHL scoring ranks even higher than the 13th spot they finished in this year.

The big question as to how these twin deals are remembered is how do they perform in the postseason going forward? The Sedins have gained a reputation for being ineffective when it counts, and Gillis has made them his centrepiece players until 2014.

They need a deep playoff run to improve their perception around the league, and it'll be up to Gillis to work around their $12.2-million salaries in further improving the lineup. He's got about $10-million to play with in free agency, but has a few holes to fill.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’m amazed they agreed to a 5-year deal when they were supposedly asking for 12. Are they still going to be worth top dollar when they’re 33? Probably not to the point where they’d get more than a 3-year deal.

"Without good hard work, it is impossible to reach the pinnacle of success." - Anatoli Tarasov

by PRC on Jul 1, 2009 11:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Might not be so bad for them. Who knows what the CBA structure is going to be in 5 years, and who knows whether two 33-year old Swedes will want to be still be in the NHL?

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jul 1, 2009 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Canucks truncated playoff run was due more to a defensive meltdown, than the Sedins’ alleged lack of success.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Jul 1, 2009 11:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

They were just okay in the Chicago series, not dominant first-line players. They have to step up and win the Canucks a series like that at some point, not just not lost them one.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They've never been dominant first-line players,

even in the regular season. But at least in this past playoffs they maintained their point-per-game scoring pace, a big improvement over their previous times. And you can argue that they’re not paid like other dominant players in the 7+ million range. Overall it’s a fair contract for both sides, with maybe a small discount given to the Canucks.

by SJKel on Jul 1, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve shown many times that they were dominant this season. They tied for 13th in NHL scoring, heavily outscored difficult opposition and lined up against the other teams’ top lines all year.

They’re terrific players. They need to play that well in the playoffs.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on what you mean by dominant (to me, it’s in the 1.2 point per game range). They tied for 21st in point per game in NHL scoring (1.0) during the regular season. They also scored 1.0 point per game in the playoffs, and they tied for 10th in point per game during the playoffs. If they are dominant during the regular season, then you must say that they’re also dominant during the playoffs (but you’re saying that, you said they need to perform better in the playoffs. Did I understand you incorrectly?). Unless you can show that they got their 1.0 PPG in the playoffs against weaker opposition than they did during the regular season, otherwise I am not convinced they are not as dominant in the playoffs as they do in the regular season.

by SJKel on Jul 1, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, I said they have never been dominant first-line players, so I’m only comparing them among first line players for dominance. Most would agree that an average first-line player should score 1 point per game, and the dominant first line players score close to 1.2 point per game or more.

by SJKel on Jul 1, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m looking at outscoring rates. Against St. Louis, they were terrific, but against Chicago, Henrik was minus-2 and Daniel was even and they combined averaged about four shots a game. Versus the Blues, they were both plus-4 and averaged about seven shots a game.

It’s a big difference. I think they need to win them a series in the future.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given that, I think the Sedins won them a series already (against the Blues). So basically you’re faulting them for not outscoring the opponents (in terms of plus-minus) against the Hawks and the lower shot-on-goals. Plus-minus ignore PP production and shots on goals. It’s all about perception though, because the Canucks didn’t go deep. I’d be very happy if they keep scoring 1 point per game in the playoffs for the rest their career. It’s the defense and the goaltending that needed to improve against Chicago.

by SJKel on Jul 1, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correction: Plus-minus ignore PP production ~~and shots on goals~~.

by SJKel on Jul 1, 2009 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vancouver might have won that first-round series without them.

I think the Sedins can be better in the playoffs. I picked them to go deep based on that because I thought they could dominate a team like Chicago, and I don’t think they did.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember you picked Vancouver over Chicago but wrote it was a coin flip, and you didn’t mention anything about Sedin being the key. As a Canucks fan, needless to say I want them to be better in the playoffs. I think their stats will be better if next time their linemate doesn’t play with a broken wrist like Burrows did (since Burrows’ production clearly dropped off a cliff against Chicago, it’s very likely that he suffered the injury either in the last game or early in the Chicago series) But at least the Canucks keep pretty much the same team so there’s likely another chance for that line in spring, hopefully.

by SJKel on Jul 2, 2009 2:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i still don’t fully understand how this is better for the canucks than a bargained-down version of 12y, 63, especially for a team that has the revenue to hypothetically hide a suddenly-crappy pair of 37-yos in the minors.

by passive_voice on Jul 1, 2009 2:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

They just didn’t like the risk associated with a deal that long. That’s commendable in my books.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i guess i just don’t see it as very risky, given that the cap seems extremely likely to go up long-term, and that they’ve got the dollaz to make the cap hit disappear.

by passive_voice on Jul 1, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Risky in the sense that perhaps they want to go in a different direction if they don’t find postseason success with the Sedins. Twelve-year deals are very tough to move.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 1, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that is indeed true, although it would have functionally been a 9- or 10-year deal at its longest. i dunno, i just like the idea of having the $2m+ extra cap.

by passive_voice on Jul 1, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs