Hindustan Smyl

Members
  • Content Count

    498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

334 Excellent

About Hindustan Smyl

  • Rank
    Comets Regular
  • Birthday 01/04/1981

Recent Profile Visitors

385 profile views
  1. The Stockholm Syndrome that many Canuck fans suffered after 2011, and continue to suffer to this day, makes me sad. ”hey guys, let’s get this player! He can be our version of *Bruins 2011* player.” I even mentioned this a few years ago when Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh were the only teams winning cups. You had 26 teams trying to figure out the LA, Chicago, and Pittsburgh models, and then you had Vancouver and it’s fans with its nose and flashlight up Boston’s sphincter.
  2. Goal for the summer: Solidify the forward group for both short term and long term. Find a top line LW’er + good 2nd line RW’er. 1) Sign Ryan Dzingel: He’ll be a good fit on the top line with Boeser and Pettersson and won’t cost an arm and a leg like Panarin. 2) 10th overall for William Nylander. Leafs get cap space. Canucks gain a long term asset. 3) Try and move Sutter, Baertschi, And Eriksson for picks/cap space. Dzingel-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Nylander [Baertschi/Goldobin/Eriksson]-Gaudette-Virtanen Roussel-Beagle-Sutter [Baertschi/Goldobin/Eriksson] Edler-Tanev Hutton-Stecher Hughes-Schenn Sautner Markstrom Demko I’ll post more thoughts later (will re-edit this post), but this is what I have for now).
  3. Why I bring up Hutton. The reason why I brought up Hutton in this thread, because I was thinking about the idea of the Canucks..... 1) Signing both Gardiner and Myers 2) Using our newfound depth on D to trade for a forward. The idea behind my thought process was that perhaps the Canucks could land a half decent top 6 RW’er that could play alongside Pearson and Horvat. OR - trade Hutton for a 3rd line Center that was an upgrade over Sutter. Gaudette would then be moved to Horvat’s wing. Eriksson-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-[HuttonReturn] Baertschi-Gaudette-Virtanen Roussel-Beagle-Sutter Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tanev Gardiner-Myers OR Eriksson-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Gaudette Baertschi-[HuttonReturn]-Virtanen Roussel-Beagle-Sutter (Sutter could get traded). Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tanev Gardiner-Myers
  4. I think it’s a decent thought, but Chicago would decline. Posters on here also need to realize that while taking on terrible contracts (with high picks) might be a decent move short term, it can cause significant cap problems down the road.
  5. Agreed, but that's not why I created this thread. I literally just want to know what's the "forward equivalent" value of Hutton.
  6. I don't think that at all. Please don't assume things about my original post. I am literally just curious about the "forward equivalent" value for Hutton. Gudbranson apparently equals Pearson and so Hutton equals..............?
  7. [proposal] Ben Hutton for a forward This isn’t a proposal on my end, but rather, just a question for curiosity sake. If the Canucks offered Hutton for a forward around the league, who would be equivalent value in a straight one-for-one deal? (Ie Gudbranson landed Pearson). Again - I’m NOT saying that “this should happen,” or “this will happen,” but I’m simply curious. Thanks!
  8. Honestly just thinking about it, I think the best thing the Canucks can do in this off season is improving their defense. There’s obviously been a multitude of reasons as to why we’ve missed the playoff these last four years, but 1) a lack of depth on defense 2) Untimely injuries to Edler and Tanev have been the biggest reasons in my opinion. I’d honestly just go after both Gardiner and Myers. Not because I think both guys can be great 2nd pairing dman that can possibly fill in on a first pairing (if we got either one of those guys for those reasons, we’d be severely disappointed), but because the presence of both Gardiner and Myers would ensure the following: 1) We would have atleast 5 or 6 dmen in the Line-up that wouldn’t look out of place on a top 4 pairing. 2) Our new found depth on defense could take less pressure off of Edler and Tanev which in effect, could reduce their injuries. Over the last four years, the Canucks have looked like a Wildcard Caliber playoff team when relatively healthy. I think ensuring depth on defense would help the Canucks punch a playoff ticket.
  9. I would be wary of taking long term undesirable contracts since it would likely cause us future cap problems when we have to reup Pettersson and Hughes. However - I’d be willing to take on short term undesirable contracts. I’d also be willing to take on undesirable long term contracts IF we have a team a slightly less undesirable contract (with the expectation that we’d be upgrading a pick). For example - a possible Eriksson + 10th for Lucic + 8th.
  10. Trading Markstrom would be a terrible move in my opinion. The cons of “throwing Demko to the wolves” would likely significantly outweigh whatever late first or early 2nd round pick we’d get for Markstrom. Demko needs to get his feet wet and get in some solid games as a back-up. Once Demko develops a bit at the NHL level, then you can start exploring options.
  11. I would also be extremely open to making a move for Jacob Trouba, assuming that Trouba still has a long term interest in playing in Canada.
  12. I get whole Karlsson argument, but I highly doubt that Karlsson would sign here for less than 10 million (likely 10.5-11 would be his market value) and as we’re seeing in today’s NHL, teams that have 10 million dollar players on their teams’ end up in “bridesmaid territory.” Karlsson’s term of 7 years would also be concerning. Karlsson is slowly becoming more injury prone, and so there’s a good chance that atleast 2-3 of those years that we’d have Karlsson would be a broken down and past-his-prime version of Karlsson. If Karlsson signs here for 10.5-11 million, then there’s no way that our other Upcoming RFA’s take any discounts of any kind. We’d basically become a poor man’s version of the current Toronto Maple Leafs (ie massive future cap complications).
  13. I can’t access capgeek right now (I’m in China), but how much term does he have left on his contract? If there’s only 1-2 years left, then it *might* be worth exploring, but I think the Pens’ asking price would be too high. I’m not sure if there’s a fit here.
  14. Lol. Fair enough. I’ll be happy to try and explain my (misguided?) thought process to each and every one of my proposals if I get a bit more free time. Tell me which ones don’t make sense to you and I’ll try and explain as best as possible. As far as Subban goes, there are a few things that I like about him more than Erik Karlsson: 1) Lower cap hit. Subban’s cap hit is 9 million while Karlsson would likely get 10.5-11 million if he signed with us.....and as we are about to see in Toronto, if you sign one guy at a premium (Tavares), you’d better damn sure believe that everyone else will want to sign at a premium as well (Nylander, Matthews, Marner, etc.). 2) Subban will come off the books just as he will likely start his age decline. 3 years of Subban and then we can walk away from him......which conveniently will be around the time that Hughes will need to be re-upped. Two things can can be achieved here (in comparison to if we got a guy like Karlsson or Panarin). A) A much lower risk of future cap complications. Since Subban’s contract would be off our books just around the time that Hughes would be extended, our cap structure would have a much greater chance of remaining intact. B-). Still a chance at a possible “buy in” from the rest of our young RFA core. If we get Subban and he becomes our highest paid player at 9 million, perhaps the team can create an internal cap limit where everyone on the team “buys in” to the idea of taking slightly less money in order to build a winner (ie for example, perhaps a guy like Pettersson signing for 9 million when he becomes an RFA......along with our other RFA’s “buying in.”). By contrast, if you bring in a guy like Erik Karlsson and sign him for 10.5-11 million (likely closer to 11), then you can forget about the rest of the team “buying in” and taking less money. You now have a Toronto type situation (ie all guys being paid at a premium, future cap complications, not having enough cap space to build true depth since an inappropriately high percentage of the cap will be tied into the top talents). So - long story short, a guy like Subban make more sentence from the perspective of.... 1) Shorter term contract (3 years left as opposed to what would be 7). 2) Significantly greater chance of having less future cap complications. 3) Significantly greater chance of our young core “buying in” and accepting cap friendlier deals when their contracts expire. 4) The addition of Subban to the team allowing the Canucks to make a push for the playoffs while Pettersson and Hughes are still on ELC’s. An often overlooked fact is the importance of playoff experience for young kids in the system. Getting Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, and Boeser some playoff experience (along with our other young players) is crucial to their development. Now obviously - the big advantage of going after someone like Karlsson, Panarin, or Duchene is that it’s a completely FREE asset (ie only give up money), but again.......if you want to sign one of those guys, it’s going to cost TERM (7 years) and PREMIUM $$$......(which would then put us in the same boat as Toronto as I explained above). Other UFA’s (Dzingel, Ferland, Myers, etc.) arguably wont move the needle much. Hence, my suggestion of Subban, depending on what the acquisition cost would be. I realize that one of the biggest arguments that people have on here (against the idea of trading for Subban) is that Subban wouldn’t make us a cup contender (something that I completely agree with by the way) , but here’s why we should still strongly consider the idea: 1) Getting Pettersson, Hughes, and other young core members to “believe” and “buy in.” If an addition of Subban can make us atleast a 1st or 2nd round caliber team, the young players on the team will not only get playoff experience, but will also come to realize that this management group has their backs and is serious about building a winner. These factors will be important when it comes time to re-upping RFA’s and getting them to “buy in.” By contrast, if guys like Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, and Horvat continue to miss the playoffs year in year out, what do you think will happen to their motivation levels? Or their faith in management? IF these continue to miss the playoffs year in year out, do you think they will be likely to “buy in” to the idea of taking less money to build a winner here? I don’t think so. By bringing in Subban, you demonstrate to the team that you are serious about winning, and that you are simply giving them a taste of what’s about to come. edit - one more thing that I forgot to mention: Mentorship for Hughes. Yes, we have Tanev for that but let’s face it......Tanev has never been a true superstar in the league whereas PK has. Hughes is an offensive-minded dman like Subban. Think Hughes can learn a thing or two from PK?
  15. PK Subban to Vancouver might make sense Obviously, this would be dependent on what Nashville’s asking price would be, but I’m starting to come around to this idea. Originally, I thought PK’s cap hit was north of 10 million, but I learn the other day that it’s “only” 9 million. Here are some reasons why I’m now on board with Subbann coming here (again, dependent on the actual asking price). 1) In today’s NHL, 9 million isn’t too outrageous of a cap hit for a top player. I’m of the opinion that teams are hardpressed to win Stanley cups if they have players that have cap hits above a certain point (ie higher than Ovechkin’s cap hit). That’s one reason why I’m not a fan of the “Toronto model,” and am also not a fan of getting Karlsson or Panarin. 2) Subbann fills a huge need on our weakest position and side. 3). Subbann will be off the books in a few short years. I think this is he most important point right here. IF you bring in a guy like Karlsson or some other superstar in his late 20’s, you’re looking at a long term deal.....and would likely be paying for a majority of those years when said player is past his prime. Conversely, Subbann would be off the books in a few short years, and the Canucks would NOT become Toronto part II where they would have so much money tied long term to a handful of players. 4) Subbann’s presence would allow the Canucks to take advantage of Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC’s. Get the Canucks into the playoffs, and get the team some valuable playoff experience. 5) Benning subscribes to the mentorship model, and who better to show Hughes the ropes than a superstar like PK? In a few years, the Canucks can move on from PK as Hughes would likely be ready to lead our defense. For all of these reasons, I would be onboard with a PK Subbann trade, but it would be dependent on the price. To Nashville: 10th + Hutton + (one of Madden or Gaudette) To Vancouver: Subbann I don’t know how realistic the above proposal would be, but I think it would revolve around something like that. I would say no if Nashville asked for Virtanen+