bloodycanuckleheads

Members
  • Content Count

    920
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

357 Excellent

About bloodycanuckleheads

  • Rank
    Comets Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hockey Hell

Recent Profile Visitors

3,602 profile views
  1. Actually, you are wrong. You don't judge a #6 overall pick against 'a random first round pick'. A #6 pick is worth FAR MORE than a random 1st. You compare a #6 overall pick - with the expected value of that pick. For instance, this statistical analysis gives the value of a #6 pick as 702, whereas the median value of a first round pick is only 423. Jake's value right now is somewhere in the 200 to 300 range.
  2. Ummm, I like how being the best team in hockey for years is all of a sudden 'behind the 8 ball' - while being the worst team in hockey over several years is helping...
  3. Don't forget... Everyone here thought 2018 was a smashing success - until it wasn't. And everyone here thought the 2017 signings were a smashing success - until they weren't. And 2016, well let's not even mention 2016...
  4. Think about this... Our offense dies almost completely when Sutter or Beagle are on the ice. That's 2 of our 4 lines. And, when either of those two lines are on the ice, our opponents will be scoring almost every goal. That's a humongous hole to have to dig your way out of every game.
  5. If having a top-heavy roster is so bad and a bottom-heavy one so good, how come we sucked royally for the last few years, while the Leafs (not to mention Tampa) were a hell of a lot better? It's because you win with stars, not 3rd and 4th liners (something that Benning is only slowly learning). We had another GM who absolutely adored the bottom-half of his roster (Nonis), and he was one of the worst GMs we ever had. Go look up Wins Above Replacement. A top star will provide you with more wins than you can buy with the money you save by not having a top star. Far more. Therefore, it's better to spend money at the top of your roster than at the bottom. Again, having us throw massive amounts of money at the bottom of our roster only led to us being the worst team in the league (over several years) recently.
  6. I just looked it up (I never trust people on this board to tell the truth), and CapFriendly says the only D-men from the season after Gilman was fired who had NTCs were Hamhuis and Edler. Not really kneecapping the team. The forwards with NTCs, NMCs or MNTCs were the Sedins, Miller, Burrows, Vrbata, Hansen and Higgins. You can't argue with 3 of those 7 (4 if you include Burrows) - and one of the other contracts was only a 2-year contract (Vrbata), so you can't really argue with that either. That only leaves Higgins and Hansen. Hansen signed for $2.5m for 4 years - and spent quite a bit of time on the top line after signing. So, you can't really argue with that one, as he was a huge bargain for the first half of his contract. Higgins was also $2.5m for 4 years - and also played great for half the contract. So, ultimately, you are saying that Gilman was terrible and deserved to be fired for four years at $2.5m ($10m total). Well, let me just point out the $6m Benning is paying Loui every year for 6 years. That's wasting $36m vs. $10m for Gilman. And, that's just one of Benning's terrible contracts! Luongo's contract was terrible - but don't forget that Luongo didn't want to play here and forced us to pay him through the nose, and absolutely everybody on this board loved him and wanted him signed long-term. We also had to name him Captain, just to stroke his ego and get him to stay when his contract was up the next year. This reeks of Aquaman and Gillis, not Gilman. Also, allow me to point out the Leafs (where Gilman works now) - a team chock-full of top-notch players - and they have the cap-space to sign two $11m players (with another one possibly coming). Of our top-three players, Petey is on an entry-level contract, Boeser is coming off his - and Horvat isn't at the same level as Matthews/Marner/Tavares - yet we're in cap trouble! How can we be in cap-trouble with our top-3 players being paid peanuts - and a team behind them that's been one of the worst in the NHL for years??? Right, because Benning fired our capologist...
  7. Ummm, we had a capologist (Gilman) - until Benning fired him.
  8. I like how you included federal tax on the Canadian side - and completely ignored it on the US side!
  9. 'We don't need [a good NHL player], we can just use [insert random AHL'er here] instead!' ^ This is the exact recipe we used to become the worst team in the NHL over a multiple-year period recently!
  10. There's an aspect to this that no one really looks at... Behind the scenes, Gillis gave us the best organization in the NHL. We had all sorts of ridiculous stuff like sleep experts and travel experts. We even had a contract and salary-cap expert in Gilman. Anything Gillis could do to make the team a tiny bit better (off the ice) he did. Benning has apparently dismantled this entire operation and replaced it with... Nothing. And, not surprisingly, we seem to constantly have salary-cap and contract issues. We're getting injured a lot more. Etc...
  11. We deserve to have this reversed for two main reasons: 1. The contract was perfectly within the rules. If the NHL had a problem with it, it wasn't our fault, it was their's. They wrote the rules, they have to live by them. You can't go back and retroactively change the rules and punish us for something we did that was perfectly legal at the time. 2. After Burrows blew the whistle on a ref that threw a game - the NHL spent years punishing us. They slandered Burrows in various media. Created hit-pieces. Etc... And then the refs spent years unfairly calling our games to punish us further, costing us a Stanley Cup in the process. Of course, they admitted they were in-the-wrong the second they secretly fired the ref, ending his career (if the ref was so wrong that his career had to be taken from him - why did you just spend the last year punishing the whistleblower and his team?).
  12. Don't forget... Gillis wanted to tear it down and rebuild like 6 years ago - and Benning was hired specifically because he didn't think a rebuild was needed. We'd be years ahead in our rebuild right now if Benning wasn't hired. He also chose Virtanen and Juolevi over MUCH better options. So, no, he doesn't deserve better. He actually deserves worse.
  13. God, this board is hilarious! [Before terms of the deal were announced] - Benning is amazing! What a genius he is! - What a great trade, we didn't even have to give up our 2nd round pick for him! [After it's announced that the trade is our 3rd, Mazanec and our 1st next year or the year after] - Ewww! Yuck! - What a terrible trade!
  14. Why would you want to win the trophy for worst plus-minus in NHL history?
  15. Caufield probably isn't dropping to #10 (even given his size). He had 115 goals this season. Read that again: he had 115 goals this year! The other guys in the top-10 didn't have half as many. At the World Juniors, he had 14 goals. Second place (Hughes) had 9, third place had 6. On the Under-18's he had 72 goals. Second place (Hughes again) had 34. Third had 33 and fourth had 27. On the US Juniors, he had 29 goals. Second place (Boldy) had 17. Third place (Zegras) had 14. He was outscoring everyone in all the different leagues he played in - by a factor of at least 2 to 1. If he was 6'3", he'd be going 1st overall. Brett Hull was slow as $&!#, and he's still one of the top-5 goal-scorers of all time. You don't pass up players who can score (a lot more than everyone else).