Maniwaki Canuck

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,327 Revered

About Maniwaki Canuck

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just going to go out on a limb here and say that if Ovechkin were putting this kind of stuff out, it would be more newsworthy than this and we'd probably know about it.
  2. This circle of jerks in the chat group are/were fringe NHLers or less. It's not a stretch to suggest that they might be dumping on others to make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings. Often that's how this stuff works. Of course the Capitals would have responded differently if it was Ovechkin. But they don't have to because Ovechkin is Ovechkin and doesn't do this stuff because he is comfortable with his own worth as a player and a person. Not the case with these guys.
  3. Absolutely: a really nice change from the usual Tranna commentary on our team. What I liked most was the breakdown of what made that team tick: very accurate imho.
  4. Check out the interview with Miller embedded part way down in this article: He comes off verbally a lot like he looks on the ice: a serious, smart, focused guy. And this interview specifically gets into the Jake-Miller relationship, confirming what a lot of people suggested above. Canucks' pro scouting doesn't have the greatest track record but man, did they hit a home run with this guy. As one of the people who got it wrong about this trade when it first happened, I'm taking my hat off to them.
  5. I was being ironic and would never want that to happen for the same reasons as you. But it's the kind of thing the geniuses who invented the loser point and the three point game might do.
  6. At this stage of an 82 game schedule, it's almost impossible to get 75 games for every team without several teams going over that number. It's all designed to even out at 82 games, not 75. So there really isn't much alternative to using point percentage to determine the standings, unless of course the NHL resorts to its usual ad hoc procedures. Here's an idea: why not get the department of player safety to determine the standings?
  7. Super frustrating loss. We can run and gun but we don't seem to be able to break a defensive shell down.
  8. Might as well be a "C". No offense to Bo, but Miller is the leader on this team.
  9. Must-win game and they won! Could have made it easier on themselves, but this one is about the result.
  10. With Benn and Fantenberg being underwhelming this year, Rathbone has a real shot at getting onto the 3rd pairing next year. If Tryamkin returns or Juolevi miraculously improves, that could push him down to Utica, but we'll see whether either of those things actually happen. Imho, it's just as likely that Rathbone shows that he can provide solid defensive coverage, with better puck-moving and offense. We still get hemmed into our own zone way too much and routinely flub outlet passes. The 3LD spot is waiting for anyone who has the skating, passing, and play-reading skills to cut down on those screw-ups.
  11. Yeah, but Bo has a 3C ceiling and will never be a playmaker, donchaknow
  12. Again, I'm not advocating getting rid of these guys, just saying that it's an option, that there are many scenarios to free the cap space to keep the players we want to keep. That's the thing about options: you don't have to take all of them, just enough to get the job done. Because in the real world, GMs have to deal with their peers and what their interests are, which creates plenty of uncertainty. So there's no basis for saying "no way whatsoever", only that you'd rather not, which is a different thing.
  13. Sutter and Beagle may not be cap dumps exactly but I don't think they're easily moveable at their salaries either. You probably wouldn't get equivalent value to their salaries coming back in a deal. I do agree that Benning would be reluctant to move these guys and that they contribute to the team when they're healthy, so I'm not hating on them at all. For sure we wouldn't want to get rid of both, but each separately is an option. My point is just that you have to weigh keeping them against losing other guys who might be higher priority at this stage. Of course I'd hate to sacrifice futures to move any of the real deadwood we've got but it might be the least damaging option. Benning isn't Dubas, but he has got himself into a tricky situation with the cap. Something has to give, so it's a question of what. I don't think you, me, or anyone else can be sure how all of this will shake down, and that a lot of options are on the table.
  14. Besides Loui and Baertchi, and agent's suggestion of Roussel, other pieces we could move to clear cap are Sutter, Beagle and Benn. It's going to cost us picks and prospects to move most of these guys and I'm okay with that. Salary retention would certainly help but somewhat defeats the purpose of clearing cap. As someone who wants to keep Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, Toffoli, Gaudette, Motte and Jake, I accept that we'll need to pay a significant price in futures to clear out contracts that stand in the way. We can afford to do that with the young talent we've already got on the team.