Hindustan Smyl

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

437 Excellent

About Hindustan Smyl

  • Rank
    Comets Star
  • Birthday 01/04/1981

Recent Profile Visitors

586 profile views
  1. Complete and utter myth. The Canucks could more than hold their own physically. Before they got cocky in that round 1 series, they were physically punishing Chicago in a big way. They also went tit for tat against some very physical teams in Nashville and San Jose......and pistol whipped those teams on the PP when they took bad penalties. The Boston thing happened because playoffs are a war.....:and after playing two of the more physical teams in the NHL (SJ and Nsh), and then playing a few games against Boston, the Canucks were too broken down. Canucks being susceptible to being physically dominated in 2010-2011 is a complete myth. Any team with that level of injury volume would have been susceptible to being physically dominated. Don’t let medias’ from other cities tell you otherwise.
  2. A franchise center is the most importance piece to have for an NHL team. Elias Pettersson is our most important player, hands down.
  3. I’m a bit confused by your question: Are you asking if the 2010-2011 team *in their prime* is better than our current team today? The answer to that is “yes,” and it’s not even close. Our current team is a bubble playoff team (WC caliber?), while that 2010-2011 was one of the most dominant teams in NHL history. That 2010-2011 team *at current* however, would not make the playoffs and would be worse than our current team. Father Time catches up to all of us and that 2010-2011 team is no exception. The twins, today, as soon-to-be 39 year olds, would be average to below average 2nd line players. Guys like Kesler, Bieksa, and Luongo have all significantly declined as well. If you’re asking if that 2010-2011 team from 8 years ago was playing in today’s NHL, then my answer to that is that they’d likely be in contention for both the Presidents’ Trophy and Stanley Cup. If they remained relatively healthy throughout the playoffs, their chances of winning the cup would be pretty high.
  4. I would highly discourage the idea of swapping bad contract(s) for bad contract(s). Not just with Ottawa, but with any team. After all of the moves that we’ve made this past Summer, the Canucks primary focus should be in planning ways to save money to re-Sign Boeser, Markstrom, Pettersson, and Hughes these next two years. On top of that, they must also side aside 10.5 million (Edler and Tanev money), just Incase none our current defensive prospects don’t look like they’ll be ready for top 4 duty. Replacing Edler and Tanev won’t be easy. One of both of these guys will either need to be re-signed, or we’ll need to find their equivalents via UFA. As far as the Senators go, they won’t have too much difficulty reaching the cap floor. I don’t think they’ll need Eriksson. They might have an interest in Baertschi (5th rounder) and Schaller (7th rounder). I would kick the tires on those deals. Before making the above deal(s) however, I’d kick the tires on the following idea: Sutter, Baertschi, and Schaller for Pageau, a 5th, and a 7th. Maybe you can even throw in Gaudette if they gave us a 2nd.
  5. Thank you for your comments. While I am a little disappointed with some of the comments and reactions that I’ve received, I’m also understanding of them (ie most guys giving these negative reactions likely haven’t done an in-depth look at the numbers). I obviously would love it if we could re-up all/most of our RFA’s, but I don’t know how practical it will be. Hopefully, I am proven wrong. As far as Juolevi goes, he’s still young enough to turn the ship around, but unless he shows something this year, we have no choice but to “project” him as a 3rd pairing NHL Dman right now. As a result, we can label him as a “Jamie Benn replacement” in two years, but nothing more........for now. As far as Eriksson goes, I don’t think the Canucks should try and move him if we have to throw in a sweetener. Might be easier to move Baertschi and Schaller and clear 5.2 million that way. At the end of this season, Eriksson might be easier to move since 31 of his 36 million will have been paid to him. Teams might be willing to absorb his contract at that point.........OR, Eriksson might be willing to retire (ie spending two years riding buses for a measley 5 million).
  6. Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Miller Eriksson-Sutter-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Leivo (Roussel) Edler-Myers Hughes-Tanev Benn-Stecher (Fantenberg) Markstrom Demko Hindustan cliff notes: 1). Baertschi traded to NJ for a 5th 2). Schaller traded to Ottawa for a 7th 3). Canucks keep Eriksson for one more year (Post July 1st 2020, he either gets traded or will be buried in the minors. Trading him post July 1st 2020 will be easier because he will only be owed 5 million in real dollars. Retiring at this time might also become a more realistic option).
  7. Pesce would be awesome, but I can’t see Carolina giving him up. A young solid defensively responsible RD at a great cap hit is extremely valuable.
  8. Fair enough. I am at fault for using that ‘term’. What I meant to say was my proposed package should be able to get you into the Top 7......perhaps higher? I’m not exactly sure.
  9. I think he’d seriously consider retirement after July 1st 2020 (31 of 36 million will have been paid to him). I don’t see it happening this year however.
  10. Fair enough. For the record, I *don’t* want to trade all of those promising prospects for a single pick. Unfortunately, I’m just not confident that we will have the cap space to sign Brock, Markstrom, Pettersson, Hughes, and (Edler/Tanev/10.5 million re-invested into another top 4 dman) and so there might not be another way around it. But again - I’m not a capolgist and so I would love to be proven wrong.
  11. Perhaps something was lost in the interpretation, but I’m pretty sure I said “lottery pick in 2020.” But again - I’m not an expert capologist and so perhaps we would still be able to re-up all/most of our RFA’s. I’m just not seeing the Math however. I’ve seen a few people illustrate examples of where Edler and Tanev money would go towards Pettersson and Hughes, but I think these people are also assuming too much with regards to our defensive prospects: Hughes-Myers Tryamkin-Stecher Juolevi-Woo Is not a playoff caliber defense in my opinion, nor does it project to be two years from now. Hopefully, I am wrong.
  12. That’s a pretty good projection. However - with regards to that defense you posted, is it realistic? Is Juolevi projecting to be a 2nd pairing dman right now? Even if he becomes borderline, is Stecher worthy enough to carry Juolevi? On that top pairing, Hughes and Myers will be able to bring offensively obviously, but do you think those guys will be a train wreck defensively? Since injuries to defense is almost inevitable during a season, do you think that above defense would be considered to be deep?.......or, much like the previous 4 years, that defense would be 1-2 injuries away from looking very anemic? The Canucks can walk away from Edler in two years If they want to, but I’d highly recommend that the 6 million be re-invested into another top 4 dman of some kind.
  13. I’d consider this as well if it wasn’t for the fact that we are going to be facing some significant cap challenges over the next two years (atleast how I perceive the situation).
  14. My proposed package won’t land 1st overall (I don’t think I said otherwise?) but it should land you into the Top 7.....possibly Top 5. I’m not entirely sure.