bloodycanuckleheads

Members
  • Content count

    432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

139 Good

About bloodycanuckleheads

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hockey Hell

Recent Profile Visitors

2,597 profile views
  1. He didn't deserve to go top-5, but that doesn't mean he has no value. Also, go look up how much teams over-value top-5 picks, even after they've gone bust. Heck, Griffin Reinhart still has value today...
  2. Yeah, they totally want a guy like Hutton for Duchene, not Juolevi. Give your heads a shake people!...
  3. Oh no he didn't!!!
  4. Everyone still think that we have such amazing prospects?...
  5. There's no way that players like Virtanen/Gaunce/Rodin are going to beat-out Burmistrov or Boeser. And, Dorsett's contract means he's staying in the NHL. So, yeah, we're pretty much set.
  6. Not true. As an example, the NFL had a hard push into China recently, and we can look back and see how it turned out for them. That's going from 25 million - to over 110 million! Think they sell more merchandise (and get higher fees) today, with 110 million fans, or 5 years ago, when they only had 20% of that number? So, yes, going to China isn't going to sell any more seats (in North America), but that doesn't mean it's not a good investment to make.
  7. The draft.
  8. Don't you guys ever get tired of questioning me - only to be proven wrong in the end? It must be absolutely infuriating?!! It took all of 1min of Googling to find an example in the press:
  9. Just to point out... When they put nice-guy Trevor Linden in charge - of a team built around the Sedins - everyone in the world of hockey predicted that exactly this would happen to us. And now it has. We made our bed, and now we have to lie in it...
  10. Oh yeah, I'm not saying you do this for everybody - just the players you know are going to turn out in the end. The ones you know are going to be stars eventually. Right from the get-go, right from their first season. The Canucks haven't had very many of those types of players ever. Jeez, let's count them back... Horvat, Tanev, Hansen, Burrows, Bieksa, Kesler, Ohlund, Sedins, Bure, Linden. Maybe I missed one or two in there (and, Hansen, Burrows and Bieksa are arguable)... And, every time we get one of them, we don't sign them long-term until after they've broken-out. We never sign them before.
  11. Oh yeah, I'm sure they are. That's why they've offered Bo everything, all the way up to 8 years! They're obviously trying to find any way they can to avoid the situation they find themselves in now. Which makes your assumption likely correct: Bo or his agents are trying to ensure that we pay the maximum amount possible (over the next decade), and not one penny less. We aren't getting a discount. Looks like we're getting screwed instead. That's one of the negatives of rebuilding (you lose players like Tryamkin who don't want to play here anymore, you don't sign sought-after locals like Kerfoot, and the stars you do have won't stay for any less than the maximum). Monday will be interesting. With the signing yesterday, that means that the rumours about Bo's contract being finalized a few days ago are probably true. EDIT: Just thought I'd go and look-up exactly how much our Tanev bridge-deals cost us in the end... - His entry-level deal expired in summer-2013 - First bridge-deal 2013/14 ($1.5) - Second bridge-deal 2014/15 ($2) - Long-term deal 2015-16 through 2019/20 ($4,450,000) So, if we sign Tanev to a 6 year, $2 million deal in 2013 (or a bit more in 2014), that means... - We overpay $500k in the first season - We get fair-value in the second season - We get a $2,450,000 per season discount in the next four seasons So, by not signing Tanev long-term and instead going for bridge-deals, we spent over $9 million more than we needed to! We could have had a $3 million player instead of Skille or Megna last season! And the season before... Trading Skille for a $3mil player isn't going to drastically improve your team, but if you do this stuff regularly, it adds up. And, pretty soon, you're playing with $10 million more cap-space each season than you should have had (and that's how you win Cups, by assembling a team that's better than everyone else's). Just imagine if we had Tanev signed for 2 more years at $2 million today! We'd have a ton of leverage right now, and could soon be offering him extensions that pay him a lot more, but keep our price reasonable. Instead, we have no leverage at all and are paying twice as much. We could have had one of the best defensive d-men in the league signed for a reasonable price for literally a decade - but, we didn't get that - because of Tanev's bridge-deals (and a complete lack of foresight by two different GM's).
  12. God, it's about the worst thing possible for us (other than maybe an offer-sheet or a trade-demand). Think about it. Bo is about the only player on our team who you know will be a lot better one day. And, he's already pretty darn good. So, that means he's under-valued right now. If we sign him long-term, there's a very good chance that he actually ends up playing better than what we paid for (a rarity for our team that has a bad-habit of vastly over-paying our guys at contract-time). But, what happens with a bridge-deal? With a bridge-deal, we pay him maybe half-a-million dollars less each year, for a couple years. But... Seeing as he's improving, that means that his bargaining-position is going to be considerably better in a couple years. So, the next time we have to sign him, we're going to have to pay him $1 or 2 million a season more. We save one million now, but it costs us $10 million later. And, with a salary-cap, you can't afford to pay your best players millions more than you have to. This happened with Tanev. Same as Bo, you knew right from the get-go that he was going to be a great player. And, we had a chance to sign him long-term and didn't. I can remember a time when Tanev would have jumped at a 6 year $2mil a season contract extension. We didn't think ahead, signed him to not one, but two bridge-deals a bit later, and then when those one-year contracts were up, we had to pay him more than twice as much! A bridge deal basically guarantees we pay Bo the largest amount of money possible (over the next 10 years), just like what happened with Tanev. Which means the salary-cap space we have for the rest of our team shrinks proportionally. And, not just that, but a long-term deal means you never face losing him. For a long time at least. A bridge-deal means we face either losing him - or over-paying - not very far in the future. You want to avoid that situation if at all possible. But, a bridge-deal virtually guarantees it. A bridge-deal is AWFUL for us. Absolutely terrible.
  13. ...he says about the man that drafted Virtanen in the top-6 (over Elhers and Nylander)!
  14. I can't remember the last time this team made a move that didn't make me want to slam my head into my monitor. So, that's nice for a change...
  15. Congratulations on literally making me snort out-loud!