Matt_T83

Members
  • Content count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matt_T83

  1. I was looking at the upcoming NHL draft, and I do believe we should trade to acquire another top 5 1st round pick. Specifically, we should target Gabriel Vilardi. Why, you might ask? He's got the telltale signs of recent improvement and overcoming adversity. In 2014-2015 he was only playing in Midget AAA, with decent stats: 21G 18A in 21 games. Then he got into the OHL in 2015-2016 and had a bit of a rough year, with 62 games, 17G 21A and a -7 rating. But he managed to overcome this has 29G 32A in 49 games played with a +13 rating in 2016-2017. And it's not like this guy is on a dynamite team; the Windsor Spitfires are 5th in their OHL conference. This guy got into the OHL a full year later than most top 5 draft picks, and had a rough 1st OHL year, and has now moved into the consensus #4 overall draft spot. To me this guy has late bloomer written all over him, and he's 6'2 192 pounds now. I can see this guy being NHL ready at 20 years old and making an immediate impact.
  2. There are no 'proper methods'. However, I'm doing a lot of leave half out models where I take the draft years from say 2000-2011 and pick even numbered years to build models on. I'll rank prospects in all draft years based on how they turned out. Then I look at all possible different combinations and weights of aggregate statistics, picking the best settings that recapitulate the observed order. Then I apply that combination/weighting of aggregate statistics to the odd year drafts and see how well I predict those rankings. If you don't do that, you risk overfitting your model to the data. The metrics you can use are almost endless. And because these are prospects, you need to look at development factors as well. How good were the players line mates? We all know that Jonathan Drouin was boosted playing with MacKinnon in Junior. Drouin has had an 'okay' year with the Lightning, but he's far from living up to a top 5 1st round draft pick. How good is a goalie if he's playing in front of the best defense in the CHL? What about a goalie playing in front of the worst defense in the CHL? Teasing apart the players individual contributions and development trojectories are almost more important than looking at their actual performance by any standard metrics. I'm trying to make predictions right now on current drafts, and see how they work out. We'll see..
  3. They do have similar numbers, but there's other things to consider. For example, high calibre centers are just worth more than high calibre LW. One of the biggest factors NHL teams are looking for now is size down the middle. Vilardi has the size down the middle. He could easily be a #1 or #2 center on an NHL team. To me the only question are the prices: how much would it cost to acquire an extra first round pick to draft him? I agree that Jason Roberston is undervalued being outside the top 30. I'd put him in the top 20 easily. However, another team will pick him in the first round I'm sure. We won't get him at #33-34.
  4. Why do you think I'm wrong, out of curiosity? I have a PhD and I'm working on statistical models for the NHL draft, and late bloomers have a much better chance of transitioning to the NHL.
  5. My guess is we already draft 5th, and Middlestadt is ranked 5th overall. We are currently 4th last in the league, and will probably finish around #3-4 worst record. Knowing how the NHL hates the Canucks, one or two teams will leapfrog us and we'll draft 5th overall.
  6. The reason I suggest Vilardi is the price will lower. The prices for the #1-2 spots will be too high. I think we could get the #4 overall spot cheaper, and I believe Vilardi will be as good or better than either Patrick or Hischier.
  7. Which goalie do we expose? From what I understand we can't protect Markstrom right now. We need to expose a goalie with a certain # of pro games played that is signed for next season. EDIT: I guess we are exposing Bachman. Wasn't sure if he was signed next season or not.
  8. There was a recent forum post by Hortankin about how the future is brighter than a lot of people see, which I agree with now. Especially with the emergence of Troy Stetcher and Nikita Tryamkin on defense, we look set for years to come. I'm not sure if Alex Edler will re-sign with us or not (I hope does), but even without him we have: Tanev, Tryamkin, Hutton, Stetcher, Gudbranson, and Juolevi coming up. All of those guys will be in the NHL and heading towards/at their primes in 3-4 years. I just don't see room for Subban to earn a regular spot in that group. But it's clear the kid has some serious skills and scoring touch. I honestly see him as a player much like Johnny Gaudreau. It doesn't make sense trying to improve his play at defense when the fundamental problem is size, which he can't change. I would argue he could make the Canucks as a 3rd line winger within 2 years, maybe even next season. And he would be an extremely versatile forward. Unlike most young wingers, he would probably start off defensively sound. And he has tons of powerplay experience -- he could immediately step in and quarterback the 2nd PP unit from the blue line. To me I just see him as so much more valuable being a 3rd line winger, rather than a 4th pairing depth defenseman.
  9. I would say that Baer is clearly developing into a legit second line player. He's only 24 and still has room to grow. You are right about some of those guys, but wrong about: Virtanen - not a bust, just taking a long time to develop. Bertuzzi wasn't a good player right away. He took 6 full pro years before he broke out with 50 points in 80 games during the 1999-2000 season. Virtanen is a power forward and won't hit his stride for another 2-3 years. We just need to accept that. Hutton will be a 2nd pairing D-man, for sure. Tryamkin will be a 1st pairing D-man, and our version of Zdeno Chara.
  10. The owners are literal retards. But I'm actually impressed with Jim Benning, somewhat. He's following his marching orders to 'win now', but quietly making sure we have some good prospects going forward. If Virtanen can get his $&!# together, and Brock Boeser joins the team soon, we should have a decent first line centred by Horvat and a good second line centred by Sutter. I can see us re-signing Alex Burrows as a depth forward, and getting good value for him. The Sedins may even re-sign for less money if they don't retire (which I think they might). However, the Eriksson and Dorsett signings are really concering... that's 8.5M in salary cap space eaten up by two players that aren't really contributing a whole lot to wins, and we're stuck with them for a long time. Eriksson shows flashes of why we signed him, but it doesn't justify 6M in salary.
  11. I've been mulling this idea over for a while now, and I'm more convinced than ever that it's absolutely the way a team should rebuild (or re-tool, if you will). Basically the idea is this: a rebuilding team should have LOTS of cap space. Why you ask? Well: To get right to the point, the best recent example I can point to is the Carolina Hurricanes offseason trade with the Blackhawks for Teuvo Teravainen. This is the guy that absolutely lit up the WJC (world juniors) only a few years ago and looks to be a potential superstar in the making. He already has 28 points in 50 games this year for the Hurricanes, in only his 2nd full NHL year. What did the Hurricanes pay for Teravainen? A 2016 2nd round pick and a 2017 3rd round pick. That's it. Yes, you read that correctly. The Hurricanes acquired a player with strong first line potential for a 2nd and a 3rd round pick. Why were they able to make this move? The Blackhawks had an abundance of talent and a serious cap space issue. The only catch to this trade was the Hurricanes had to take a bad contract in Brian Bickell. This is of course the reality of the NHL Salary Cap Era. Like vultures, rebuilding NHL teams need to run lean with lots of cap space to make moves. This gives you room to take on a bad contract or two from competitive teams, in exchange for prospects/picks. I wish like hell the Canucks had the room to take Bickell / Teravainen. We easily could have been in on that deal. But nope, we didn't have the cap space. Imagine if the Canucks had 20M in cap space and could take 4-5 bad contracts from other NHL teams for the next 2-3 years. Sure, we would struggle for those 2-3 years... but we could acquire so many more picks/prospects. If the Canucks could have found the right trading partner, we could have traded a value player like Jannik Hansen (2.5M AAV) to a competitive team in exchange for picks/prospects and a bad contract. This kind of package is a win/win for both teams, and can help get you better value for your trade deadline assets. Hansen is injured now, so this is less clear. But we still don't have the cap space to maximize such a trade anyhow. We have less than 1M in cap space right now. A rebuilding team should not, however, sign an expensive 30+ year old free agent to a 6 year, 36 million dollar contract. TL;DR: Rebuilding (or re-tooling) NHL teams should run lean salary caps with lots of cap space. This allows them to take advantage of teams up against the salary cap, just like the Carolina Hurricanes did this past summer, when they acquired Teuvo Teravainen for only a 2nd and a 3rd round pick. The only catch was Carolina had to take a bad contract in Brian Bickell. Sadly, the Canucks are up against the cap right now with less than 1M in space, and unable to make such moves.
  12. I did not mention that in post, because the cap relief next year is a bit non-existant. We will go down to $55M cap next year, but we also have a lot of players coming up to UFA/RFA status. We'll likely end up with maybe 5-6M cap space extra, max, after re-sigining everyone we can. But definitely after 2017-2018 when the Sedin contracts end, we will have more cap space. However, the Canucks could easily have almost 10M more cap space than we do now if we hadn't re-signed Dorsett and hadn't signed Eriksson. Those two contracts right there hurt a lot. That's 8.5M in cap space that we are stuck with for a long time. Idiocy.
  13. Ok, so I made a similar thread a year ago when the leafs claimed Corrado off waivers. However, I think it came off as a little bitter that we lost an asset, rather than seriously discussing the issue of waiver abuse and prospect hoarding. It's time the NHL made a rule for claiming players off waivers: they must play in 50% of games until they are UFA's, as well as 41 out of every 82 consecutive healthy games, with at least 10 minutes of ice time for a game to be counted as 'played'. If the team is not complying with this rule, the player would be allowed to demand assignment to the AHL, where they would then be exposed to waivers. This would give said player a chance to find a new home with a new team Obviously injuries would except this situation. If a player is injured for 22 out of 82 games, then must play in 30 out of the 60 healthy games. Some people might say this is harsh to 'force' teams to play a player... but they chose to pick that player up off waivers. No one is forcing teams to pick up players off waivers. If you don't want the player, you don't take them. If you change your mind, then you just waive them yourself. If you want them, you play them. Simple as that. The Frank Corrado situation makes it obvious that players in his situation need to be protected. He wants to play, but the leafs refuse play him or waive him (because they know he will be taken). They are just hoarding an asset and hurting his career growth. Also, he was an RFA and had no choice but to re-sign with the leafs. He's still an RFA next year, meaning he still can't control his own fate. EDIT: As 3KBieksa and a couple others have pointed out, you wouldn't want such a rule to hurt depth players. You could change this rule to a non-mandatory option for the player. Say if the player isn't in 25-50% of games, they have the option of forcing an AHL assignment. This way if a player is happy with their role and deployment, they can stay with the team as long as they like.
  14. I'm not saying you can't make good moves without accepting bad cap hits. And also, the two trades are not comparable. Baertschi was struggling and could have been considered a 'project'. I would argue the risk in the Baertschi trade was considerably higher. Mind you, if Teravainen busts, feel free to quote/flame me on this. I would argue that 3-4 years from now Teravainen is clearly the better player.
  15. Just to add an example of a good team/player to target: I would be targeting the Pittsburgh Penguins and Marc-Andre Fleury towards the trade deadline, if I were a rebuilding team with cap space. Matt Murray just backstopped them to a Stanley Cup, so he's clearly clutch. He's got a decent .922 Sv% this year, and has played 29 games. In contrast, Fleury has only started 28 games, likely being given every chance to prove himself, but has only mustered a .906 Sv% and an ugly 3.15GAA. Fleury is signed until 2018-2019 at an AAV of 5.75M. The penguins would almost certainly like to clear that cap space, and it's not likely they will get much value for an over the hill, overpaid goaltender. A trading partner that could eat Fleury's contract and offer them a value player (like Jannik Hansen) could definitely get some picks/prospects out of the Penguins. This is a team that definitely has another cup run in them, maybe 2-3 more. They want to win now, and would be willing to pay for it if the price is fair. Unfortunately the Canucks are not in a position to take advantage of such a situation.
  16. Speed. If you watch some Junior clips of him, he is really good at exploding up the wing, and he can score goals off those rushes. He would give whatever line he is on that breakout threat, forcing defenders back. This opens up the neutral zone and makes zone entry easier, allowing his line to better enter the offensive zone with control.
  17. I'm not so sure that's true. He generates his offense from far out because that's how they have him playing. If you watch his Junior days, he had some Bobby Orr like rushes up the wing to score goals. They have him not doing that in Utica because they want him to be more defensively sound. Trust me, he will score goals from wherever you play him. With his speed and shot, his rush up the wing from a breakout pass would be NASTY. He would literally force teams to back up more and be ready to defend him when he's on the ice.
  18. Yea, that might be the case I guess. And it's kind of silly, since right now is the absolute best time for him to change. He's still young, the summer is coming up. Within a year he could be an NHL caliber winger. If he waits another 5-6 years and multiple trades to change, it may be too late :S.
  19. Honestly, I have to admit I'm starting to agree with you OP. I've been pretty negative about this team. I'm not a huge fan of Gudbranson, and I've been pretty vocal about that. However, Tryamkin has absolutely blown me away this season... Benning is looking like a genius drafting him :S I'm not so optimistic about Jake Virtanen. I still think we should have drafted Ehlers, Nylander, or Ritchie instead. I also think that the twins will retire at the end of their current contracts. They don't need more money and they'll probably want to spend time with their families and retire in Sweden. We will need to add another 1st line winger to complete the line with Horvat/Boeser, and we will need better 3rd line players when the Sedins retire. But, as you said, our defense really does look set. The current defense group is young and will only be better in 2-3 years. We might have to replace Edler, but that's okay. Tanev, Gudbranson, Tryamkin, Hutton, and Stetcher will round out a very nice top 5D.
  20. For anyone that missed this article that came out just before Christmas, JD Burke posted a nice analysis of the Gudbranson situation on the Canucks Army website. Link: http://canucksarmy.com/2016/12/22/should-the-canucks-extend-erik-gudbranson-s-contract He points out that Gudbranson rejected a 4-year, 16M deal the Panther's offered him just before being traded to the Canucks. He suggests that Gudbranson will be demanding 5M+ per year, on a long term deal. However, JD's analytics also suggest that Gudbranson is underperforming for the 3.5-5M/year range. Given how stubborn Benning is, and the price he paid to acquire Gudbranson, I am genuinely worried that we will shell out 4.5-5M per year, for 5-6 years, to extend Guddy. If the analytics are right, we could be stuck with a 5M/year 3rd pairing defenseman for years to come. Now, some people may say we are rebuilding and it doesn't matter, but rebuilding teams NEED cap space. Why? One of the best things you can do as a rebuilding team is have cap space to take bad contracts. You can negotiate deals with contending teams to trade a decent player (say Hansen) in exchange for prospects/picks, and take a bad contract in return. Taking that bad contract can garner an extra late round pick or a better prospect. But if you have no cap space, you can't do that. The dilemma: Do we re-sign him and just give him what he wants? Or do we take him to arbitration? At arbitration we could get him at 3.5M/year, but probably only for 2-3 years. If we put him in that spot, he will certainly hate us and leave the team ASAP.
  21. I'm so sick of WD. He plays Larsen, who was a terrible, terrible player so much... now that Larsen is injured we've been doing better. Same thing with Gudbranson. Guddy is a 3rd pairing D man, but he's been giving him 1st/2nd pairing minutes. Now that Guddy is injured, again we're playing better and in more competitive games. WD starts Bo Horvat on the 4th line. And thank god Bo is a true professional, because he's played his way to being our clear top player, also making his linemates better. WD plays Sutter so much, even though his scoring is so-so and his defense is crap. The way i see it is that WD is trying to play safe and play not to lose. The problem is we are a young team and need to be developing our future. Our 'safe' veteran players aren't good enough to win now. Our ONLY chance to win is to play younger, unproven players and see what they can do. This isn't giving them 5 games and then done. This isn't giving them 4 minutes a game. We need to play younger, unproven players for 30-40 games at 10+ minutes a game and see how they adapt. Worst case scenario we lose and get a good draft pick. What WD is doing now is trying to scrape out as many wins as we can, finishing 9th place just outside the playoffs and getting a bad draft pick. Good job WD. You've managed to lose in the worst possible way. Fire this clown; I've seen enough.
  22. McDavid and Laine are weak defensively... so what? That's literally what you should expect from high scoring teens. Your examples prove your idiocy, because they are LITERALLY true. Again showing your idiocy, there is no dilemma with McDavid or Laine. Why? Because young players almost always struggle defensively in the NHL. And guess what? They also almost always improve defensively. The difference with Gudbranson is that he's 24, but an old 24. This is Gudbranson's 6th NHL season. He's not going to get better, whereas McDavid and Laine will get better. Reinhardt in Buffalo isn't doing as well, but he's also not going to get an insane contract. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is SOLID evidence to suggest that Gudbranson is going to demand 5M+ per year with term. He's worth nowhere near that, and arbitration would definitely force him to re-sign at 3.5M/year for 2-3 years. Hence, the dilemma: do we force him down the arbitration route, or do we give in to his demands? And your comment about "4 years is a long ways away" is horrible and short-sighted. We need to be thinking long term.
  23. My speculation is that you are actually 100% backwards. I think Gudbranson is dragging down Hutton. The analytics indicate that Gudbranson drags down the play of his linemates, leading to an increase in unblocked shots against. Hutton is young, but I feel he's playing even better this year than last. Gudbranson SHOULD NOT need a tough, 'hard-nosed' defenseman to be paired with. That's literally his job. No one expects him to produce points. All he should be doing is playing strong defensive/positional hockey, creating space for his linemates. But his hockey IQ is almost negative. He's constantly in the wrong spots, doesn't use his size very well, and tends to run around like a chicken with his head cut off in the defensive zone.
  24. Exactly. And he will probably demand term as well, possibly even a NTC. If we give him 5M/year and 6 years + NTC.... that's going to be a major disaster. I say we force him through arbitration and keep him at 3.5M/year, and try to get 3 years out of him at that rate.
  25. Perhaps, only time will tell. However, your reply is inaccurate. He is NOT a top 4 defenseman. If you had bothered to read the link, you would notice he's really only performing at a 3rd pairing (top 6) level overall. He also drags down his teammates, with most people performing worse with him on the ice. In 4 years we could be stuck with a 5M/year 28 year old defenseman that gets out performed by depth D-men making the league minimum, and TWO YEARS still remaining on his contract. That's not a good situation.