Provost

Members
  • Content Count

    5,426
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Provost last won the day on April 14 2016

Provost had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,096 Gaming the system

1 Follower

About Provost

  • Rank
    Canucks First-Line
  • Birthday October 24

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,014 profile views
  1. Not a chance, the only reason to waive him is to try to get him to terminate his contract rather than riding busses hundreds of miles away from his young family for three years. If he won’t do that, then keeping him on the Canucks roster is the next best thing. As a 13th forward, he can still provide something for his contract.
  2. You are changing your argument now. You said the owner didn’t care less where Eriksson player because he was paying the salary anyways. The article and interviews made it clear that wasn’t even remotely true. He eventually agreed to do it in the Gagner case. It doesn’t mean the same will hold true for Eriksson. Each one of those phone calls is it being made abundantly clear to the owner that the GM screwed up badly with the signing. We don’t even know if Benning is going to go down this route yet as he is on pretty thin ice as it stands.
  3. Ya, you don’t get to ignore the bonuses in this context because the owner still has to pay them. That is only an argument for a new team if you are moving him on.
  4. That doesn't make sense even if it was true (cap is calculated daily and not per season... so if the player isn't there, you don't get charged towards the cap regardless of what it would be if it was extended to the whole season... the cap number sites can't track that level of granularity and just use AAV and add them up). It is the same with trading players, you don't get charged for the time he wasn't there against your cap. But following your logic, you simply sign him for less the later it goes, or you let him sit out the season. There is a deadline now to sign RFAs and the pressure on the athlete not to miss an entire year of a very short window of earning potential is much greater than the pressure on the team. The agent will also know what the cap situation is, so it is even more pressure on him to get a deal done before the start of the season, or the simple math of less money being available for his client is looming. It is pretty much the opposite of what you are saying. The player gets screwed by holding out more than the team in that scenario. The roster is set, the money is set, and there is a hard salary cap. There are few ways for a team to free up extra cap space once the year has started, hard to make decent hockey trades at that point that don't leave you worse off than simply letting the RFA rot for the season. If some dummy agent used this line of reasoning on me, I would shrug and say it is your client's loss because the pool of money available for him (that cannot be exceeded under the CBA) keeps shrinking the longer it goes.
  5. Ya, so not true at all. There have been several interviews DIRECTLY with Aquilini and Benning regarding burying Gagner. It was made clear that it wasn't a fun conversation at all and he really didn't like spending millions of dollars on a player that wasn't contributing to the big club. It is a big difference when you say you are giving up on a player and it will cost the owner millions for zero return, compared with "it is your job to get him to perform at a level closer to his cost and he is still on the club". Even at his current level of play, Eriksson is contributing for the money, he won't be in the AHL and that is a long term to be eating that money. This is an article that references it. Benning "It was the hardest call I have ever had to make to him (Aquilini)" and Aquilini literally saying "I wasn't happy about it. I mean it is $3.5 million a season. It is crazy..." sounds nothing like your assertion of "It won't make a difference to him". https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-gm-benning-talks-team-owner-aquilini-demoting-gagner/ So with Eriksson you are talking about WAY more money and Benning has already pulled the burying a vet in the minors card once, costing Aquilini money... doing it again would be a much harder conversation.
  6. His agent made it fairly clear that he was freed up to pursue options himself and contact other teams about potential landings spots. I suspect they have found a team that Loui wants to go to like Dallas who would be willing to take him... but they would want a deal the Canucks want no part of like a huge sweetener and salary retained. So now it is a stalemate, the team wants to be rid of him at the cheapest cost possible, and his agent wants the best landing spot and could care less what it costs the team. The Utica possibility is the leverage that the Canucks have, and like half the fans here... his agent thinks there is no way Aquilini accepts that much being buried in the minors.
  7. Were the staff overpaid, slow, and unmotivated? Maybe that only works for NHL contracts and not actual business... poor Loui not appreciating the difference.
  8. That just isn’t true. The people who actually watch him say his speed isn’t an issue. His hit totals make it clear that he is keeping up. He isn’t a speedster, just isn’t molasses. Just like Schenn turned out to not be nearly as slow as the hand wringers moaned about. They say his hands have gone, that is something you might be able to get back, where legs just age worse and worse.
  9. Ya, my comparison is a lineup with Eriksson OR Lucic. Neither is obviously better than either.
  10. Ferland is the only real face puncher among them all that would even be considered a middleweight. I don’t see Lucic as any sort of overkill at all. If you have a lot of guys hitting opposing players, it will raise the temperature of a lot of games and guys are going to have to answer the bell. Lucic would be the best fighter on the team and have to take on the toughest opponent. That means all the way down the line the other guys get easier opponents. I don’t know if it would work, but a team with bunch of tougher players who actually have the capability of scoring 20 goals each could do some damage in the regular season and be really good in the playoffs. It isn’t like the guys you listed are 8 minute a night plugs... they can all actually play up and down the lineup. I am not advocating trading for Lucic necessarily, just the the overkill logic doesn’t hold up for me. The one thing is we “need” What Lucic brings far less than we did a month ago... so what Edmonton would have to give up as a sweetener is more. Ferland-Petterson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Miller Lucic-Gaudette-Virtanen Roussel-Beagle-Leivo Motte Swapping out Goldobin, Granlund, and Erikkson for Ferland, Lucic, and Miller is an upgrade any way you slice it.
  11. Wish in one hand and crap in the other, see which one fills up first...
  12. Wish in one hand and crap in the other... see which one fills up first.
  13. Well it was the coaching staff’s assessment of “who he should be” that I posted... and that they hope he should be a top 6 winger but maybe he isn’t. You are arguing that he is a top six guy AND it is unfair to have those hopes for him? Virtanen has played 210 NHL games over four seasons, Gaudette has played 61 games effectively all in one season. You get to have different expectations of guys at different points in their career. If Gaudette hasn’t progressed a couple seasons from now, he will be getting judged more harshly too.
  14. That is just dumb and based on absolutely nothing aside from wet dreams of fans. Is he signed yet? If they are all pushing towards the same goal, then the negotiation should have been really easy. Agents have a legal fiduciary obligation to look after the interests of their clients and not those of the team. His agent will be fighting for the largest dollars and term that gives his client the most control going forward.
  15. ... or he gets to the end of his contract, files for arbitration, gets his 1 year deal awarded and is then a UFA. Four and five year deals are the worst idea from the team perspective. It is retaining the least amount of club control. A two or three year deal, or a six plus year deal is what the team would want.