• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,538 Gaming the system

About Provost

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line
  • Birthday October 24

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,400 profile views
  1. That does not appear to be it... or he would likely have said that. "For the likes of" seems to suggest a style of play rather than a specific skill set. Tryamkin has primarily played on the right side, you can bet they would play him either side if they saw a reasonable way to insert him into the lineup. The alternative is that he could be sitting on the bench for a couple more months or until he bails to the KHL.
  2. Not quite how it would work in this instance. Tanev provides no offense, and has been replaced by Stecher who does provide offense and can play the 1st unit PP instead of Larsen for a look. If you then pull out Larsen for Tryamkin you are at a wash at least as far as offense....and probably better defence than leaving Larsen in. Effectively it is Stecher and Tryamkin platooning for what Tanev, Larsen bring... not a one for one like you are suggesting.
  3. With Tanev out and Stecher around for a bit to provide some offense, now is the time to pull Larsen for a few games and see how we do with Tryamkin in the lineup on the 3rd pairing. Give him 2-3 games to see what he has, and when Tanev is back you decide who gets pulled out of the lineup.
  4. I agree somewhat... althought I don't think we can have 9 D regularly. If Gudbranson, Hutton, or Sbisa gets injured you have Tryamkin as a fill in. (if it is Hutton hurt, then Sbisa probably moves up and Tryamkin takes his place on 3rd pairing) If Tanev, Hutton, or, Larsen gets injured you have Stecher. Biega doesn't really fit into any particular role. Mcilrath showing Tryamkin what a mean streak is could be useful.
  5. No they don't. They have a responsibility to their NHL team. Utica is simply a development team, and by far the priority is to provide players to the big club. If they "happen" to win while doing that...great. If they don't see Etem as a player that has a future with the Canucks, then he is just taking away a contract spot, ice time and development opportunities from other players who might fill an organizational need. They have clearly decide that the slight reward for acquiring Etem (eg. the chance he eventually turns into an NHL player) is less than the above liability of keeping him in the system.
  6. Haven't seen any news yet either. If the Canucks don't reacquire him then I think it is safe to say it isn't a matter of asset management anymore.... it means they do not consider him an asset. So far, the rest of the league seems to agree as he does not seem to be coveted. Lots of career AHLers and guys who end up in the European leagues have some skill, but aren't quite good enough to play in a top 6 role AND don't have the skill set to play in the bottom six. He could just be one of them.
  7. Michalek is probably the best kind of fit and might be able to score some goals. It would probably be more prudent to see if he clears waivers and then try see if they would retain salary.
  8. It isn't an impossible suggestion, and I am the opposite of a "tank" numbskull. Clearly the price has to be right and a dramatic overpayment. It depends on if LA wants to tread water or really ensure they have a solid shot at the playoffs and another run in their window. If they want the latter, there aren't a lot of options out there... I can't actually think of one aside from Miller. Detroit could let a good goalie go, but they have no room to retain or trade for salary. Same goes for Pittsburgh and Fleury is signed to term which doesn't work for LA. The most likely scenario is they find someone else's reliable back up who can maybe sneak out a .500 win percentage if they are lucky. Pavelec, Greiss, Berra maybe as options on the cheaper end. If they want to swing for the fences, they need to give us a huge overpayment for Miller and our ability to retain up to half his cap hit.... the latter part being the most important consideration for LA as they have to face Quick coming back and needing to fit both guys in for the remainder of the season. We start the conversation at their 1st round pick, plus add a sweetener of a quality dependent on how much salary we retain. On our end, we then have to go out and find a decent back up for Markstrom and have to make sure the cost for that is much less than the return we got for Miller. It does help us somewhat as we need to get Markstrom more starts over the next two years, and this is a good opportunity. We could also get that back up goalie with an extra year of term left to bridge us to Demko in a couple seasons. The downside is we are then a Markstrom injury away from losing our season. We probably wait until the deadline to see where we are in terms of moving Miller... but don't count out this idea as out of the realm of possibility.
  9. By virtue of his position.. yes he is worth more. Top 4 D are hard to come by and more expensive than 2nd or 3rd line centres. Also the arbitration rights are different as they are not the same class of RFAs. Horvat has zero leverage coming out of his ELC
  10. I think it is "almost" zero, but greater than zero chance of it happening. LA would have to overpay pretty dramatically to get it done in the division AND because we actually still need Miller to avoid being in the same position they are if there is an injury. The deal would have to be a 1st rounder PLUS a sweetener for us eating a big chunk of Miller's salary, which is the only way it works for LA once Quick comes back. It actually works for us as we can get a solid back up that is maybe even signed to another year, that alllows Demko to get the extra year in the AHL that is expected and Markstrom to get more starts over the next two years. Pavelec, Greiss, or Berra are much more likely candidates for LA.
  11. This came up, haven't seen any legit threads about the LA situation yet. I don't see how it works at all with the cap situation of both teams. This is almost certainly just random pondering considering that Pittsburgh "could" give up a goalie and LA needs one. I have no idea how LA is going to get out of this particular mess with goalie situation and cap issues. They can't take on any decent goaltender because they don't have the cap room and Quick comes back in 3 months. Looking at their roster I don't see any real trade possibilities for freeing up space. They will have to find an upper level back up for around $2 million or less and then trade of waive them when (if) Quick returns. Good news for us though. Maybe they terminate Dustin Brown's contract for some vague personal hygiene concern and watch the NHL allow it.
  12. This year... after the expansion draft.
  13. .... still haven't won jack. Are still winless on the season and people are throwing a party.
  14. Ha ha... you do know Jensen was waived as well right? We didn't lose anything and didn't gain anything... at worst a wash.
  15. - Canucks finish in the 90-95 point range and are right on the bubble for a wildcard spot - The pleasant surprise is Rodin who pots 20 goals - Edmonton still sucks - Toronto still sucks - People on CDC still believe that following in the above two teams' footsteps by tanking is the key to success - Anaheim, LA, and Dallas are all worse than last season - Nashville is excellent and is vying for top spot in the West all the way to the trade deadline -