Leafs Sign Jake Gardiner (5 years, 4.05M AAV)

[cw]

I don't mind if Holzer is the #7, but I don't want him on the ice during any games.  He sucks.

He sucked playing top line minutes with Phaneuf against the Crosby's and Ovechkin's of the world. As a bottom pairing guy with secondary PK minutes I think he'd probably be fine. At any rate we shouldn't really judge him too harshly based on what we've seen from him at the NHL level so far.

It's a little off topic, but he sucked regardless of where he was in the lineup - and I'm pretty sure it wasn't all on the top unit.  Just looking at old game day threads, he had stints with Liles and Kostka, for instance.  And frankly, he sucked in all training camps I've seen too.  I haven't seen 1 iota of evidence that he has any skill whatsoever.  It doesn't surprise me that he hasn't stuck with the team.

He has been one of the best dmen if not the best dman with the Marlies for four years (ignoring some who may have been down there for a bit and then promoted like Gardiner).

After four years, at age 26, it may well be time to stick a fork in his chances at the NHL. But he's not a bad guy to have for depth. And if nothing else changes, he might be the best they've got for the 7th dman spot. Because of how well he's played for the Marlies, it's hard for me to totally discount him.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

Yep, the best description probably came from Dave Tippett (and I know it's been posted on this forum at least once before):

"We had a player that was supposed to be a great, shutdown defenseman. He was supposedly the be-all, end-all of defensemen. But when you did a 10-game analysis of him, you found out he was defending all the time because he can't move the puck. Then we had another guy, who supposedly couldn't defend a lick. Well, he was defending only 20 percent of the time because he's making good plays out of our end. He may not be the strongest defender, but he's only doing it 20 percent of the time. So the equation works out better the other way. I ended up trading the other defenseman."

And with Gardiner, he's great at moving the puck out of the zone with possession and gaining the opposition's zone with possession - and getting shots on net.

 

[Frank E]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Then why doesn't that show up in the stats?  Gardiner played the most minutes of any D on the Leafs at 5 on 5 last season with 1,363 minutes.  4 other D on the Leafs played at least 1000 minutes at 5 on 5, and of those D Gardiner was on the ice for the least number of goals against (tied with Gunnarsson) and was on the ice for the least number of goals per 20 (or 60, or whatever metric of GA relative to TOI you want to use).

 

[bustaheims]

Then why doesn't that show up in the stats?  Gardiner played the most minutes of any D on the Leafs at 5 on 5 last season with 1,363 minutes.  4 other D on the Leafs played at least 1000 minutes at 5 on 5, and of those D Gardiner was on the ice for the least number of goals against (tied with Gunnarsson) and was on the ice for the least number of goals per 20 (or 60, or whatever metric of GA relative to TOI you want to use).

That's the thing about Gardiner - while he may not be the strongest defensive player, his ability with the puck means he's not spending as much time in his own end as other defencemen. The most effective way to play defence is to have control of the puck, and Gardiner is excellent at helping with that. Quite frankly, I don't care how he plays in the defensive zone when, as you point out, despite having the most ES TOI among defencemen, he was on the ice for the lowest number of goals against. That's not all on him, obviously, but it certainly is an indication that he's a positive influence on the team's overall defensive play.

 

[pmrules]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

This...a million times this. 

 

[Kin]

That's not all on him, obviously, but it certainly is an indication that he's a positive influence on the team's overall defensive play.

Well, except there's pretty good evidence that he was sheltered in terms of who he was being used against.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Then why doesn't that show up in the stats?  Gardiner played the most minutes of any D on the Leafs at 5 on 5 last season with 1,363 minutes.  4 other D on the Leafs played at least 1000 minutes at 5 on 5, and of those D Gardiner was on the ice for the least number of goals against (tied with Gunnarsson) and was on the ice for the least number of goals per 20 (or 60, or whatever metric of GA relative to TOI you want to use).

That's the thing about Gardiner - while he may not be the strongest defensive player, his ability with the puck means he's not spending as much time in his own end as other defencemen. The most effective way to play defence is to have control of the puck, and Gardiner is excellent at helping with that. Quite frankly, I don't care how he plays in the defensive zone when, as you point out, despite having the most ES TOI among defencemen, he was on the ice for the lowest number of goals against. That's not all on him, obviously, but it certainly is an indication that he's a positive influence on the team's overall defensive play.

Yeah, he could be getting unsustainably high goaltending when he's on the ice, for instance, so I don't want to put too much weight on it - but simply to say that if he really was that bad defensively I think those #'s would be worse than they are.

It's funny because I've just been reading a Q & A in The Hockey News with Kyle Dubas and his answer to a question seems really relevant to discussion about Gardiner defensively:

THN: What about things like cognitive studies, psychological biases, and other scientific approaches? Have you been examining that type of research?

Dubas: There are a lot of good books people can read. Whether it?s Fooled By Randomness or Thinking Fast and Slow or The Signal and the Noise, they have a lot to do with probability and data, but they?re more to do with how we think, how our mind can fool us and how what we?re watching may not be exactly what we believe it to be. I?m fascinated by those things, not really to do with hockey, but to do with living and life in general. That stuff is of general interest to me in improving the way I think and we think.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/qa-with-kyle-dubas-the-leafs-28-year-old-assistant-gm/

I think he's a good example of a player that maybe judged simply with your eyes you might undervalue him but if you marry that to the underlying statistics it can help you appreciate the player to a greater degree and tell you things about the player that maybe aren't initially obvious.  Sure his skating is obviously terrific, but the stats help show you how that helps the team both defensively and offensively.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, except there's pretty good evidence that he was sheltered in terms of who he was being used against.

When a player has the most ES minutes among the defence corps, he's only be being sheltered so much. He may not have been out against the other team's 1st lines all that much, but, it's not like he was only out there against their 3rd and 4th lines, either. He was still out there against some pretty good offensive threats most of the time.

 

[Strangelove]

That's not all on him, obviously, but it certainly is an indication that he's a positive influence on the team's overall defensive play.

Well, except there's pretty good evidence that he was sheltered in terms of who he was being used against.

I think that says more about Randy's ineptitude than it does about Gardiner's defensive prowess. Unlike Dion in particular, Gardiner doesn't often get caught out of position/running around in his own end and is able to control the puck out of the zone better than any other Leafs D. This ability may not be as noticeable to some fans as the ability to stand in front of the net pushing guys down, but it's far more effective, which is reflected in the number of goals-against the Leafs allowed while he was on the ice vis-a-vis other players.

His defensive problems are completely overstated.

 

[ZBBM]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

Gardiner may well learn to defend better.  From what I've seen though, he seems just a bit (just a bit, mind you) Phaneuffy in terms of his hockeysense.  When he gives away the puck in his own zone, it's often spectacular.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

 

[Kin]

When a player has the most ES minutes among the defence corps, he's only be being sheltered so much. He may not have been out against the other team's 1st lines all that much, but, it's not like he was only out there against their 3rd and 4th lines, either. He was still out there against some pretty good offensive threats most of the time.

Well, it's not outside the realm of possibility though. He got 18 ES minutes a night. Most 1st and 2nd lines will get...what? In the neighbourhood of 36 minutes of ES time a night? So assuming there's roughly 45-50 minutes of ES play during the average game you could give someone that sort of ice time and almost entirely shelter them from the other team's top two lines.

I mean, I'm not a QOC believer but Gardiner's is lower than Gleason's, lower than than Franson's and way lower than Phaneuf or Gunnar's. Combined with his lack of PK time and it's pretty safe to say Carlyle didn't trust him in key defensive situations. Now, I'm not as down on Gardiner's defensive performance as some and Carlyle may have been wrong in the way he used him but I do think that regardless of how good a defenseman is at moving the puck the collective flow of the game means he's going to spend a significant amount of time in his own zone without the puck.

 

[ZBBM]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

I understand and agree.  What I argue is that he (and all dmen) need to also be able to play their position without the puck.

It wouldn't be such an issue if we had a couple of really good defense-first guys on the backend to choose from to pair him with.  Gunnarsson was IMO pretty much that type of player, but he needed to be used to cover for Phaneuf.  Maybe Polak will fill that bill, maybe Robidas too, or Granberg.

 

[Frank E]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

You could argue that it's a form of defense, but you'd have to concede that playing well with the puck and being positionally strong to defend without the puck aren't mutually exclusive.

I would argue that if Gardiner can learn that part of the game and become a stronger defender, he could very well be a $7-$8 million dollar kind of performance d-man...and that's what I'd like to see him become.

 

[freer]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

I understand and agree.  What I argue is that he (and all dmen) need to also be able to play their position without the puck.

It wouldn't be such an issue if we had a couple of really good defense-first guys on the backend to choose from to pair him with.  Gunnarsson was IMO pretty much that type of player, but he needed to be used to cover for Phaneuf.  Maybe Polak will fill that bill, maybe Robidas too, or Granberg.

It has be better then last season. They need to have the puck more, and stop having the opposing team from out shoot us.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

I understand and agree.  What I argue is that he (and all dmen) need to also be able to play their position without the puck.

I think he can - is he great? No, but few players are and even fewer are great while having his ability with the puck.  So I think his play without the puck is made into a bigger issue than it is, because his play with the puck makes it less of an issue.  I feel like I hear more criticism of Gardiner defensively on the whole than I heard about someone like Gleason, who I'd argue is far and away worse at all facets other than being physical.

Basically IMO I think he's great with the puck and that his play with the puck overcomes any perceived deficiencies without it.

 

[freer]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

I understand and agree.  What I argue is that he (and all dmen) need to also be able to play their position without the puck.

I think he can - is he great? No, but few players are and even fewer are great while having his ability with the puck.  So I think his play without the puck is made into a bigger issue than it is, because his play with the puck makes it less of an issue.  I feel like I hear more criticism of Gardiner defensively on the whole than I heard about someone like Gleason, who I'd argue is far and away worse at all facets other than being physical.

Basically IMO I think he's great with the puck and that his play with the puck overcomes any perceived deficiencies without it.

So all he need too do is have the puck more then. Problems solved. The team as a whole needs to have the puck more.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

I understand and agree.  What I argue is that he (and all dmen) need to also be able to play their position without the puck.

I think he can - is he great? No, but few players are and even fewer are great while having his ability with the puck.  So I think his play without the puck is made into a bigger issue than it is, because his play with the puck makes it less of an issue.  I feel like I hear more criticism of Gardiner defensively on the whole than I heard about someone like Gleason, who I'd argue is far and away worse at all facets other than being physical.

Basically IMO I think he's great with the puck and that his play with the puck overcomes any perceived deficiencies without it.

So all he need too do is have the puck more then. Problems solved. The team as a whole needs to have the puck more.

He already does have the puck a lot, arguably as much or more than anyone on the roster.  He's not the problem.

 

[freer]

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change that to the 'Kaberle-syndrome' wherein an offensively gifted defenseman is criticized their entire career for being incapable defensively.

This. A millions times this. He doesn't play the way people traditionally perceive as being good defensively, but, he's much better than he gets credit for.

The criticism of Gardiner was kind of 2 fold...Firstly, he had trouble defending players from making plays in the defensive zone when he didn't have the puck.  Secondly, he would sometimes make some very risky plays that backfired on him.

I would argue that he's very good when he's got the puck on his stick, risky plays notwithstanding, but he's not good enough and the defensive side of the game (positionally) when without the puck.

I like the guy, and he got a fair deal given his contributions.  But let's be realistic here...he's not positionally strong without the puck....yet.

Exactly.  Puck possession and Dave Tippett's comments notwithstanding, d-men need to be able to play defense. 

I think the argument is that what he does well IS a form of playing defense.

I understand and agree.  What I argue is that he (and all dmen) need to also be able to play their position without the puck.

I think he can - is he great? No, but few players are and even fewer are great while having his ability with the puck.  So I think his play without the puck is made into a bigger issue than it is, because his play with the puck makes it less of an issue.  I feel like I hear more criticism of Gardiner defensively on the whole than I heard about someone like Gleason, who I'd argue is far and away worse at all facets other than being physical.

Basically IMO I think he's great with the puck and that his play with the puck overcomes any perceived deficiencies without it.

So all he need too do is have the puck more then. Problems solved. The team as a whole needs to have the puck more.

He already does have the puck a lot, arguably as much or more than anyone on the roster.  He's not the problem.

The "Whole team" had the problem. He was part of the team so he was part of the problem.