• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,169 Gaming the system

About timberz21

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Recent Profile Visitors

6,283 profile views
  1. Basically what I have been saying for a while. While we do need Tanev, he will never live-up to his new contract. Might help us for 2020-21, but will hamper us after that. Highly doubt he settle for less than 4 years. This is his last contract IMO. As for Toffoli, I'm all up for re-signing him too, but I'm afraid of the price tag. Benning as been pretty adamant of setting a standard within the organization. Bo and Brock are signed at reasonable price and until EP is re-signed Toffoli will be the highest paid player on this team IMO. But looking at comparable, if Toffoli is looking to get over 7M$, then we'll have to pass. Tyler Toffoli, 28, 300 pts in 525 games Chris Kreider, 28, 316 pts in 523 games, 6.5M$ for 7 years extension Brayden Schenn, 28, 429 pts in 657 games, 6.5M$ for 8 years extension Kyle Connor, 22, 201 pts in 249 games, 7.142M$ for 7 years extension Matt Duchene, 28, 589 pts in 793 games, 8M$ for 7 years extension Honestly, before doing this exercise, I thought the comparable would be much higher. Now I'm actually thinking we have a decent shot at keeping him. At least we'll know if it doesn't work out, it's because Toffoli was too gready. Benning paid a good price for him, I doubt he's going to lowball him to stay now, he'll pay a fair price I believe, and he has some pretty good comparable arguments on his side too.
  2. Healthy and in shape are two different thing. The guy is listed at 260 on hockeydb, that was his playing weight. The guy hasn't played in over a year and didn't seem motivated to do so, I highly doubt he had the motivation to keep in shape while away from the game. At 35 years old, it's even harder to stay in shape, I cannot see how he can return to hockey and be relevant in any way.
  3. Yeah, like that's the deal breaker for these young kids...their weight.
  4. I remember when Veleno got the status, he didn't really get it because he was going to be the next McDavid or Tavares. He got the status because he was an January birthday and missed the cut by a few days only. Other factor was he was physically mature enough for the CHL and had nothing more to learn in Midget hockey. I think that was more the reasoning behind the decision rather than he was expected to be a superstar. While his status was kind of a stretch, he also threatened to go the US/NCAA route also, therefore, kind of gave the Q extra motivation to keep him.
  5. Both teams says Hell No. While value for Horvat would be good, Canucks are not going to trade their captain, signed long-term to a bargain deal, for future picks. NJ is rebuilding, they are not going to trade 2 potential lottery picks and another 1st for Horvat.
  6. So as of today...the Canucks are in the playoffs, with their destiny in their own hand and somehow it is very likely that we will miss them? Why, because of a recent slump. Every team goes into slump, it just happen that ours is now. I do expect the Canucks to turn it around. We were apparently exposed in around Christmas because the Lightning thumped us 9-2 and now apparently will not make the playoffs, despite being still in. smh
  7. Unfortunately, Canucks aren't the only team with bad contracts. Do you really think we're the only team that will call Ottawa? They will be a bidding war and Ottawa will be able to choose the best offer and a 6th rounder won't cut it, not even close when Backes just went for a 1st and a 2nd.
  8. I don't think that's the point here.....they are taking 50% of Eriksson, for a guy they could have let walk to UFA in 3 month.....so basically ....50% of Eriksson for absolutely nothing at all? This proposal can't be serious. On top of losing Deslauriers....and taking on Eriksson, you're suggesting they go sign another guy to protect their guys? Why just not keep Deslauriers.....take Eriksson at 50% and the depth prospect....and since they have to send something back...send us a 7th rounder in 2075. Not sure why you think we're getting off that easy when Boston just paid a 1st and a good prospect (2nd rounder) for Backes
  9. I think the better news from the increase is not only the additional wiggle room for the Canucks, but also that the cap floor will be higher than expected. The Canucks might have more trading partners to unload a bad contract like Eriksson who is a cheap one for a cap floor team. More partners = lower price to unload. With that said, unloading Eriksson won't be free either, just maybe cheaper than anticipated.
  10. timberz21

    Jim Benning

    First, it cost Boston their first rounder and a 2018 prospect (2nd rounder), to get rid of Backes (Actually to only got rid of 75% of his contract). I'd rather Benning keep his 1st rounder to acquire another JT Miller than getting rid of 2.5 years of Eriksson. Also, that was the price to get rid of 1.5 years of Backes. The Canucks has to get rid of 2.5 years of Eriksson. There is a reason he hasn't been move yet.....1) we are not in cap trouble yet; 2) the cost gets cheaper as the contract near it end. Once that signing bonus is paid in July, then Benning can start making calls on taking Eriksson without selling the farm to do it. You want to get rid of Benning for the bad contract....but on the other hand you give the example of Backes, which was signed by the Bruins, one of the top teams in the league. If you were a Bruins' fan....would you be calling for Sweeney's head for giving out the same bad contract? They are also still carrying the Beleskey contract on their books. How in the hell is Goldobin a bad contract? The guy get 350,000$ more than the league minimum. Who cares if he's in the minor....he's good depth. Probably would have been recalled for Boeser if we hadn't acquire Toffoli.
  11. As much as I like Tanev and as much as our Defense is our glaring weakness, I don't see how we can afford to re-sign him. Giving our cap situation, I think he's the sacrifice we have to make. Tanev is a pending UFA who's at the crossroad of the 30 years old mark. He will be looking for the last contract of his career. Despite being healthy this year, how much longer can we expect him to continue to play at that level? Brent Seabrook was his age when he signed that dreadful contract (and had a career year after that also) but the Blackhawks have never been the same since. I wouldn't offer more than 4 years, but honestly I'd prefer 3....but I don't see Tanev settling for less than 6 (maybe 5 with an NMC and a little extra AAV, which would be a mistake IMO). I can't fathom that he will live up to such a contract and this could hamper the best years of Petersson. Flame away but I'm ready to let him go.
  12. What if Flames said the same thing after Canucks picked up Toffoli? If Canucks makes a move does the Flames make another? lol Vicious circle where does it ends.
  13. It helps when you're scoring at a 29GPG pace in the past two years, compared to 11GPG for a certain LE.
  14. Prices is fair...i guess NJ really didn't want any contracts back. Probably why it didn't work out with the Canucks, which is probably a relief.