coolboarder

Members
  • Content count

    481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

162 Good

About coolboarder

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    North America

Recent Profile Visitors

3,012 profile views
  1. Our defence took a hit with this pick but we might have some UFA signings for D with 3.6 million coming off the book and I think that there should be better defensive UFA than Sbisa so we'll see if we snag one out there coming July 1st. I haven't taken a chance to take a look on UFA pool this year so I don't know who might be available.
  2. You have to keep in mind that LV must select all 30 players at 73 million cap, not the usual 23 players roster at 73 million at the expansion draft according to the rules. So that means they must select average 2.43 million per players for 30 players at the expansion draft, meaning, they may only afford a few 5+ million and their average would be a lot lower at under 2 million to balance it out.
  3. If he showed that he can still play when he wants to but when it comes to defending at crucial time, he failed this performance for us and burned us too many times. He is more difficult to move due to his NTC and he has more saying on where to go and would fetch less return. He is also difficult to move because of his play in last two years and GM will make a note of that. Maybe making a deal with Vegas by exposing Edler for a return if Vegas wants him, for a pick or future considerations deals for exposing and selecting Edler at expansion draft and use that to give one of our prospect to Vegas for more returns. Future consideration deal can involves Edler asking for trades when playing for Vegas in return in future deals and Vegas and the Canucks can get some asset back in future trades using future consideration deals when Vegas trade Edler playing for Vegas. In my opinion, it's harder to make a trade with Edler with the Canucks than Vegas. So make a deal with Vegas to recoup the asset back using this route.
  4. For me, grade A is defined as a talent that is already becoming a superstar status in their first two years, not necessarily a rookie season that last in that status until well past in their 30's. Grade B talent tend to develop into a superstar status years later after their rookie season or AHL. The Sedins was not a superstar player until their 8th to 9th season. That's how I define that category for the group of players. The Canucks never had grade A talent except for Bure and he was traded away and we couldn't keep him. Linden was grade A but he could never keep this superstar status up after his 5th year so he became a grade B talent or grade C as a checker. I might not necessarily call Eriksson a grade A more likely grade B talent so I corrected myself.
  5. Honestly, I am against make-up calls, when they were screwed in the first place, namely a missed call led to the goal and a make-up call is not guarantee for that team to actually score a PP goal. Either, you call it when that penalty is warranted, or you don't. Don't go for make-up calls is the worst thing you can do to a team, taking away their momentum. This is silly, imo. What the NHL can do, is to remove that game management in their rule book and call all penalties as is stated in the rulebook and be strict about that regardless of score and time of the game. I'm not holding my breathe on this one, and allow linesman to call high sticking penalties. It seems to me that the linesman is not allowed to make this call anymore. Other option is to have all 2-minutes penalties where a PP goal is scored, penalty is still being served if the way the NHL calls the penalty nowadays. Another option, is to have a coach challenge for any missed penalty calls, to one per game, is separated from coach challenge on goals scored in offside or goaltender interference as a solution or a certain challenge whether it should be a major or minor penalty.
  6. When I was little, I never understood why the Canucks don't win too many games in 80's and I never understood how they do not stay on the top and most of the time, when they do win games, it is short-lived at the top, from 3 to 4 years, not 10 years examples: 1991-1994, 2001-2004, 2009-2013. IMO, the Canucks has the worst freefall in the history of hockey from 2012-present with virtually same core. I hope that the next rebuilt Canucks will last for 8-10 years at the top, not short-lived.
  7. Avoid inter-divisional trades unless it's for prospects only trades like Baerstchi for 2nd round pick is ok as an example. You don't want to help other teams within the division with normal trades that does not involve with prospects and picks.
  8. Even if we obtain Grade A talent, they either failed miserably or got old in case of Mogliny, Messier, Sundin, Eriksson top off my head. Also, we seem almost never develop our own talent to be a superstar except for Bure whom we got lucky to have him but unfortunately, he was never the same after the ACL injury. Any grade A talents that comes here tend to be a curse for us.
  9. It takes a perfect storm, with all aspect of the roster Benning assembly straight from the draft and if all panned out accordingly to their timeline, it just takes 20 roster players that drafted and developed plus some depth in AHL for call-ups for any injury that might occur. If you average 3 to 4 NHLers per draft year that is above their weight in term of skill and work ethics, it will take about 5-6 years for a complete roster turnover if you start from 2013, at the most for them to be a playoff contender and plus 2 or 3 extra years for young talent beating out the regulars that was a part of rebuild process and is surplus in term of talents and use them for a trade for any upgrade for proven players like a top C or a top D. It could take just 3 years if you pick all 7 picks for all 7 rounds within 3 years who panned out, a lucky three 7 stars. So far, we have gotten about 10 potential young talents from last 3 years alone to go with established veterans but this is not enough because of the core that is getting older so you may need another 10 to complete the roster turnovers. If there is positive attribution about Benning is the ability to draft players from any rounds to become a regulars here. If he is able to improve pro scouting staff, and we're golden. One thing I wish that WCE era is that the Sedin would be at 2009-2011 form in 2003 and could have won the cup one of those years. It just takes a perfect storm for the team to be a unstoppable force for one of future years.
  10. If the Canucks needs Drouin, they have two other RFA pending and their going to seek a raise, their were at 3.3 M for two players, not Drouin and he is coming off ELC so why not take advantage and offer him 3.7 million for two year at the cost of 2nd round compensation, Tampa will probably match but they have other players to sign in 2018. Tampa has about 17 million of projected cap space so they might not want to spend that much for Drouin at 3.7 million or they could be willing to forego 2018 1st/3rd round for Drouin at 7.5 million dollars. We get to keep Tanev and we will have a lot of space after Sedin's contract expires. If Drouin underperforms in 2017/18, the Canucks can always file for arbitration to have his salary reduced to a reasonable range. We might lose only 1st and 3rd at 2018 draft, that is if the Canucks needs him on the team right away for their rebuilding stage. It's a risky proportion. So our risky move is to propose Drouin at 3.7 million for two years at the cost of 2nd round and Tampa wouldn't want to pay him that much especially with the way the relationship has gone on between them or overpay him up to 7.5 for 1st/3rd round pick that Tampa wouldn't even think about matching that contract.
  11. In a perfect world, Las Vegas would take Dorsett for toughness they need.
  12. It never hurts to try and negotiate for this one but if other teams try that idea, they might be able to outbid us. There are other teams are in need for goaltender like Fleury and they may be able to make that deal with Dallas, or any other team that is set in everything except for goaltender so they might and will be able to make better trade than us. Also, try to do some deal with other teams that is exposing but could make a deal for Edler for a better D and a pick. If there are better forwards to be found than our forward, we could do deals to get what we want but we are rebuilding and it might be difficult to do because they might ask for 1st or 2nd year exemptions as a part of the deal. Tanev is our bargaining chip but the issue here is that our D is not ready to handle this alone without him as evidenced by last season injury. If I would trade away with one of our D, it will be Edler for sure or expose him directly on expansion draft. Think about this, if Pittsburgh deals one of their goaltender, they might have to expose others that they might want to keep so who knows that they may do a deal with Vegas not to touch one of their goaltender. It all depends on which deal is better.
  13. I have 3 different ideas but worth taking a look. Option A I would increase the odd for bottom 5 teams if we are going to keep top 3 draft, 90/10 to be split. 31- 25% 30- 20% 29- 17.5% 28- 15% 27- 12.5% All of the bottom 5 teams get the share of better odds of staying in top 5 pick 90% of time than 50-60% of pushing out of top 3 or top 5. It also place a greater emphasis and more weightily on the bottom 5 that needs them and also to prevent tanking all the time but will drop 3 spots on 10% chance while rest of the teams that did not finish bottom 5 get 10% chance of the odds to be split up accordingly at less than 2% each. This will also reduce the odd rest of them landing at top 3 at 10%, meaning, one out of 10 years, they land in top 3. It also pointless to tank because they might not be able to get #1 pick 75% and the highest odd of being pushed back with 3 spots while rest of 4 spots might have some lower chance of pushing out of the top 5. Option B No more lottery draft and go by the league standing in order but with one stipulation: no #1 pick on back to back years or 2 top picks once every 5 years and If they happens to finish bottom of the league back to back years, they will get only 1 top overall pick. It goes like this: year 1, finished last, 1st overall pick year 2, finished last, 2nd overall pick, and whoever finished 2nd last goes 1st overall pick that year. year 3, finished last, 1st overall pick. year 4, Just missed the playoffs by a point, will be drafted accordingly in the standing or if they finished last, and whoever finished 2nd last goes 1st overall that year. year 5, finished last, 2nd overall pick, and whoever finished 2nd last goes 1st overall pick that year. It does not matter as long as they meet 2 out of 5 years quota before reset to zero. Or, year 1, finished last, 1st overall pick year 2, finished last, 2nd overall pick, and whoever finished 2nd last goes 1st overall pick that year. year 3, Just missed the playoffs by a point, will be drafted accordingly in the standing Year 4, made the playoffs, will be drafted accordingly in the standing. Year 5, finished last, 1st overall pick Year 6, finished last, 2nd overall pick, and whoever finished 2nd last goes 1st overall pick that year. In year 6, they don't get the first overall despite the reset in year 6 because it forbids them from getting first overall in back to back years and year 7 will be a reset for a new 5 year cycle if they still finished last. Option C Hold a lottery for teams finishing last in each conference regardless of the points between two teams because of difference on schedule matrix or whoever finished last in each division get lottery chance amongst 4 teams from 4 different division and rest of them goes by the order of the standings with 25% chance of landing #1 pick for all divisional basement dweller. This option is more of a simplified lottery with just 2 or 4 teams involved that finished last place in their conference or division.
  14. The problem with the Penner's offer sheet, is that it is a wrong type of RFA offer sheet, you need to find a right type of RFA to make this working out so well. Penner wasn't a superstar, or even in making and you only hear from him one year while Sakic, and Federov built up their reputation as a superstar player with a proven playoff performer. Sakic and Federov was a RFA and in that era, there were no cap, making it easier to match the offer. There were no burning the bridge at that time between GM and they continues to make trades and why should this be any different, it's a business. But if there was a cap in 90's, I'd bet you that Detroit wouldn't build a dynasty with back to back cup and If I see a team is building a dynasty in making, I'd make a higher offer sheet to prevent them from becoming one. The reasons that you don't see many quality UFA is because most teams have locked up their RFA and buy their UFA years before the season is up and teams are doing that so that they avoid getting outbid by other teams. Sooner or later, you will see many RFA players deciding to wait until the free agency to open to see if they might be any higher offers from other teams for first 5 days and if there is none, he will apply for arbitration and it just take one GM to successfully poach a player for this to become a norm because RFA is so valuable than UFA with higher bid or teams in a cap trouble, trying to resign a player to a lesser money. Drafting is overrated if you cannot develop them properly. Maybe it's better to have other teams to develop their players properly and then poach them for slightly higher price that other team might bail in exchange for a 2nd or 3rd round compensation even if they are unproven. Most teams would offer players their 2nd contract to a one or two years of 600-900k range without arbitration rights and still bury them to minors if they are not ready and is not willing to pay them one way contract so you might need an owner willing to take a hit on paycheck and cap hit counted at 300k for 1.2 million one-way contract to a higher prized prospects to go with it for their 2nd contract. Most often, players starting to have third contract at 2-3 million dollars range for a bridge contract once they are already developed and if they like their performance, they will buy their UFA years and this is how most GM operate this way. I am trying to think outside the box and you have only one or two opportunities a year if you have your own pick to do it so and you can poach teams RFA players at 1.2 million one way without any compensation and no GM has tried to sign 1.2 million offer sheet with no compensation so far to any of their prospect coming out of ELC and there is no limit on that one if the owner is willing to pay higher cost at a 300k cap hit per player in one summer and pay the full salary in minors.
  15. Actually, I have thought out of this strategy from late December when it was apparently that Loui Eriksson signing did not work out well for us. This is not an impatient impulse reaction by me. While build a team though the cap, drafting and development is the way to go, I agree. RFA tend to check out characteristic of a young and cheaper player and if you take a closer look, it is a risky move, for sure but if it does work out, it will have our roster being filled in exchange of giving our prospect time to develop in the minor and other GM in the league may get even with us which is ok. But this comes with a cost, a pick but it all depends on which type of pick we are giving away, be it second round, or third round or no compensation. If we are just a player or two away from being a playoff contender, we can attempt that move just to fill the roster and if that team did not match, we have got that player we wanted to get somewhere, depending on our goal. The problem, most GM in the league is afraid to give away picks when it shouldn't be the case. You have to take a look by year to year basis to see which is deeper draft and which is not and make that calculated decision based on that one. Wow, thanks for proving my point, if I'm Philadelphia, I would attempt to get Kesler knowing that he is worth it with many years of control if the Canucks didn't match or should have offered more for 1st and 3rd round pick compensation. So 2016 2nd round compensation is maximum of 3.7 million so if we offer sheet a player of his caliber of that amount but hasn't proved yet, I would offer him and force that team to make a decision because 3.7 million is a lot of money than 2 million that Philadelphia made that offer sheet. If you take a look around the league, most teams would sign the bridge contract at 2 to 2.5 million so if we are able to offer this much for that player, he better be worth the price to pay for a 2nd round compensation or even higher compensation. This is a risk worth taking if we are able to find best RFA available come July 1st and offer that on first day, players will probably negotiate and not apply for arbitration and actually get more than he might be offered by his own team and it is too low, he can then take their offer and forego the arbitration process. By the end of the day, we might get that player for years of his service.