coolboarder

Members
  • Content Count

    1,299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

614 Esteemed

About coolboarder

  • Rank
    Canucks Prospect

Profile Information

  • Location
    North America

Recent Profile Visitors

3,851 profile views
  1. One thing I would like to see for next CBA regarding to RFA, not UFA. For RFA, if they sign a player to a long term, it shouldn't be a guaranteed money and if they wish to buy them out, pay them money but not counting toward the cap and become a UFA and it becomes a guaranteed money. For all UFA, it's a guaranteed money and it's on the GM to know that it's worth the money but for RFA, it's a gamble whether they would perform in latter years of the long-term contract. I would make it a compromise: anything is less than 5% of the cap is a guaranteed contract for all RFA but any players who wish to be paid more is more risky and should be treated as an unguaranteed contract. I would suggest to be grandfathered clauses and give teams one or two compliance buyouts in exchange for a slightly increased salary cap, maybe 51/49 shared HRR. I would be all for unguaranteed money for all RFA's in next CBA. It would ensure that the team gets to pay their players and keep them and it's onus on the RFA to performs in order to earn their money. With that CBA, RFA with unguaranteed contract will become worth more in term of offer-sheets than guaranteed money will and lose their draft picks as a compensation. I agree that bridge deals is a show-me but when the league is getting younger, this CBA introduction to RFA unguaranteed money in exchange for bridge, making it possible for RFA to earn a big contract early and they have many years left to live up to their contract. If the club feels that he is not performing, they can buy him out and not be counted to the cap as a compromise and UFA still get to keep their guaranteed contract in the CBA. There are 32-teams league and RFA deserve their piece of the pie and allows for teams not to be stuck with that undeserved players with their balloon contract. RFA is kind of a tricky to maneuver because he is still unknown and unproven commodity because of their great performance early only to fizz out late in their career. I've seen that happening all over the league in which is why teams are wary of giving out a long-term contract and give him the bridge instead. So when it comes to Boeser, it's tricky business whether to give him a bridge deal or a long-term contract especially of unknown factor of him coming off a serious injury, lacked summer training and had a bad start but got better as season went on. He is a unknown commodity when it comes to a high paid salary not knowing what he might look like with full summer training. If he plays like the early season flop next season, it would be tough for Canucks to build their roster with a bad contract.
  2. If there is no good free agent to be found because other quality UFA opts to sign with other teams then you might as well make a trade. That's very simple answer. Also, you do not want to sign too long of a term. If you must entice a quality player, do it with high salary for one-two years deal and not be stuck with a long term in a case of a bad season. Vraba is a good example of it. That's it.
  3. I would take either Centers or Defence in first round of draft because the overabundance supplies of depth can fetch you a good return for a proven players now in a trade rather than prospects in returns. Centers has only 4 jobs available, defence has only 6 jobs available when compared to wingers, it has 8 jobs available and you can find them through free agents and teams nowadays wouldn't trade away their top center or a top Defence unless returns are premium. A winger in first round is risky, unless you are a Jagr and wingers can be replaced easily and there's are too many good wingers around in the league but centers and defence is harder to find. If you don't have a winger, a center can be traded for a top winger in the league if you have a depth in the centers or defence.
  4. If I am rebuilding and I do not want to throw my prized prospects into the wolves, I wouldn't sign him 6x6 but rather, 8x2, two years deal for 8 million per, that will entice a undeserved UFA to a high money but as a placeholder for a very short term, I would if it takes to entice to play for us short-term for players like Eriksson. If you offer him something, he will take a risk, play hard for his next contract and if he doesn't perform, I would not bring him back. Simple like that. If a players wants security, take that security somewhere else. I do not want to risk an underperforming player for too long. I am more interested in players for a short-term for high salary for aging veterans who have been proven before to protect our players that is not ready for the spotlight. High salary for short term is the way to go, including signing bonus. That way, if I do not want him back, the cap will come off the book.
  5. I kind of agree that the bottom 8 teams should get a lottery chances (bottom 2 in each division when Seattle joins the league) get a chance for #1 pick. When I said equal, I mean the same percent of chances because of difference on strength of divisions and schedule matrix. If #9 wins the lottery, highest they could go is 4th (moves up 5 spots). If 16th place team happens to win the lottery, the highest they could go is to get in the top 10 pick. I would hate to see if borderline team missed the playoffs by a few points get the #1 pick and wins the Cup the year after is kind of unfair for other teams having to build their teams the hard way. So if they like the top 3 pick then use that system where everybody would not feel being undeserved but according to their range rather than leapfrogged everybody.
  6. I wouldn't mind a short-term 3-year bridge deal through after Luongo's contract expires due to a potential recapture penalty then sign him a long term. We'll need all the cap room we could and depending on what Boeser wants for the amount of dollars is up to him for less than 6 million but not over due to unpredictable future regarding Luongo retirement plans.
  7. What the Canucks have is the depth of the centers and goaltender: (Horvat, Petterson, Sutter, Gaudette, Beagle)(Madden in NCAA, await his decision whether to sign with us or not in future). That is the depth we have and we can afford to make trade from position of strength. Markstrom and Demko could be 1A and 1B with DiPietro in AHL as of next season. We have about two seasons before expansion draft so we would want to make a trade before this happens and I would prefer to trade away Markstrom to get more assets back and Demko could as well be a #1 starter in the future and he has the potential to become one. There are many teams looking for goaltender and we can afford to trade away Markstrom because expansion draft has forced the hand and we do not want to lose them for nothing. What we do not have any depth: top 6 wingers and defencemen. We don't want to create a hole in that department so I would not make any sense to make those type of deals and we may only afford to trade Tanev if Edler is resigned for 2 years and nothing more. We have played well without Tanev and gained Schenn and would be nice to resign him for a year deal to show himself that he can keep it up for 82 games. Stecher and Hutton can play a big minutes in all situations and Quinn will become a #1D with the way he is playing. So therefore, we cannot afford to give away our D prospects.
  8. I honestly would trade away Horvat, Sutter, and Tanev with 10th pick for #1 pick. This will solidify the Devils' roster for years to come with proven players like this. We already have EP, Gaudette, Beagle and can give Hughes some sheltered minutes or have Madden coming in, We already have depth on centers and can afford to give away Horvat, Sutter for Jack Hughes. We cannot afford to give away other pieces on wingers, or Defence. We do not have any depth for that asset to give away. If Tanev is being offered as a carrot on the stick, I think Devils will take it. We played well without Tanev so I feel that he could be a part of package for #1 pick. I wouldn't give away our goaltender but we have to do it because of expansion draft coming up soon. Use this as a part of package but they would have to pick only one, Tanev or Markstrom. Schnider has been disappointing for the Devils.
  9. I am open by moving Horvat for #1 pick. Horvat is more of a proven player and they will know what they have while the Canucks needs more time rebuilding. I can see them not being ready for playoff team without any moves. Horvat/Sutter and #10 pick and NJ would take it, it would solidify centers in their roster for a long time. Hughes is a center and probably not be ready for next few years. He is not McDavid or Matthews anyways. There's no guarantee that Jack Hughes would pan out. This proposal I made would gut our center depth for a few years until Hughes is strong enough for the NHL. Even if we do not make any moves, I feel that the Canucks are not ready to make some noise as there's too many holes in our Defence and the depth should injury bug strikes again.
  10. This is supposed to be lottery draft, not the playoff preview. Talk about teams needs for non -playoff teams is fine for suspense but not playoffs. Who cares about that. If I want to watch a preview about the playoff, I'd watch it when it is titled, Playoff preview show.
  11. If you look at the history, most often the players whose 26-35 are the dominated players in the league. Gretzky were 24 when they first won the Cup and if he was good when he was 19-20, he will dominate the league at that age range. So therefore, if Petey is 20 and already is good in this league, imagine what he will be like when they are 26-35? The same for Boeser, Hughes, Demko, Horvat, etc. If they fared well in their early 20's where they are still physically developing and by the time they are 26, they are fully developed and that includes mentally developed when they are 25. If JB keeps on drafting good players that is already good early In their career and by the time they are at that age with so many good players, they could potentially become a dynasty but other teams are already competing for this very same thing, 31 and soon to be 32 teams in the league. If you struggle to come out of the gate, you will have a harder time dominate the league when you reach at that 26-35 range. I believe that what JB is discussing about the future and the timeline on winning the Cup. It doesn't mean that he will strip of youth and trade them for that range, that's foolish. If JB keeps hitting home runs in next few drafts, this team could be that for years to come.
  12. I would love to see Bettman's reaction if we cheer him. His face expression because he is expecting a boo every year. If we give him a standing ovation, he would be like, uhhh. But yeah, let's stick to the tradition by booing him. He loves to being a villain. Every time they boo him, he truly embrace the boo. I wonder how much he would embrace the cheer? Maybe we'll never know.
  13. I agree with you there, I have noticed a recurring theme, he plays well when we are eliminated from the postseason but my biggest gripe is where he has been when we needed him the most early in the season? I wouldn't let the players get away with that one. Play well throughout the season and I'd be happy to bring them back. I would trade him with teams being interested if they doesn't know how he has been doing early but look at the late season surge. I'd do it in a heartbeat, depending on the return we get.
  14. Tbh, I never liked Goldobin's play. I feel that he was mishandled by Willie more than other way around. Benched by a good breakaway goal and he never regained his confidence. Playing cautious ever since that benching, trying to please the coach rather than play his own game within the coach's approval. I do not think that Green has mishandled him but rather Goldobin never got it or misunderstood what Green wanted him to play as English language is not his first language. He had issues in San Jose organization despite obvious skill and talent. It is more of his personality/character that turned Green off in some way, the same for Willie and San Jose organization. This is my speculation. It has nothing to do with skill but rather his approach to the game. The difference between Petterson - Goldobin despite similar skills they possess is that Petterson has confidence, knowing what to do and the defensive style is different from rest of the team and Green appreciates it. Petterson doesn't have to play that way in the defensive zone but he wanted to do it while Goldobin looks lost In the defensive zone. So I would not mind if Goldobin is dealt away and find success elsewhere.
  15. What if we lose the game but Ducks wins the lottery just because we want to lose the game for #1 pick then we'd be kicking ourselves for not earning a point. It is only a percent loss, not a big deal. I would be in favor of a rule where you win a lotter, you would not be able to win a lottery for next 3 years to prevent a systematic tank. This would be a rules to encourage teams to build their teams.