Provost

Members
  • Content Count

    6,207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Provost last won the day on April 14 2016

Provost had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,036 Gaming the system

1 Follower

About Provost

  • Rank
    Canucks First-Line
  • Birthday October 24

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,585 profile views
  1. Diamond on air said they have been in contact... but that things are on hold until all this other stuff gets worked out. You can’t really have discussions until you know the landscape with the cap, compliance buyouts, etc. A reporter has also said that Tryamkin’s KHL team wants to re-sign has been told he is going to try getting an NHL contract first. I don’t think it is a slam dunk though. Tryamkin’s camp and some folks here think he is a legit top 4 guy. The team probably thinks he is still a big risk and probably a 3rd pairing level guy with value like Benn and Fantenberg.
  2. Interesting bit of info from a 1040 interview today. Rafferty played on the left side most of his college career, so is completely comfortable on that side. That gives us a lot of extra versatility and increases his chance of being on the roster when next season opens (assuming we don't trade him away of course). You don't want two rookies on the same pairing (Green would give them very little ice time)... so having Rafferty and Myers could be an interesting option for offensive zone faceoffs, but their overall minutes being more limited with no PP or PK time. We need another defensive guy with Hughes, Tanev if we can get him signed for a reasonable deal and can shed other cap. Edler can probably carry a partner like Tryamkin... Edler would get more minutes with special teams play, ideally an Edler Tanev PK if you can wrangle it. Hughes-XXX (Tanev?) Edler-XXX (Tryamkin?) Rafferty-Myers Benn/Tryamkin
  3. I am not suggesting it is an easy slam dunk, but I think they also have to be thinking long term as well. There is nothing to suggest that they will be contending for the next 2-3 years, the exact window that you can expect Weber to be performing at a good level. Keeping him to help them a little in the short term will almost certainly cost them big time in the long term when they might be looking better and closer to a Cup. I also think a savvy GM could really leverage Nashville’s looming recapture disaster, to get a big asset in return for buying out Weber.
  4. Provost

    Judd Brackett

    Petterson was absolutely a Brackett pick, every report says that Benning had to be convinced to pick him by an intense pressure campaign from Brackett and Hammarstrom. Brackett had Hughes really high on his list (like #3), but apparently Benning also liked Hayton as much as Hughes. If Hayton hadn’t gone off the. Sore before we picked, who knows which guy we would have picked. So suggesting Brackett May have a feeling of entitlement is like saying Petterson has a feeling of being entitled to being on the top line... is it entitlement if you have earned it?
  5. The fact Weber’s goes down a lot actually makes him more of a buyout candidate than otherwise. At some point in the next 6 coming years, Montreal hopes to be a team able to go deep in the playoffs and maybe even contend for the Cup. Having an almost $8 million cap hit for a 40 year old defenceman during those years would absolutely destroy those chances. They took their chances with Weber because they though they were close, and figured the early years of success would make up for the later years of the albatross contract. That didn’t work out. Compliance buyouts only cost cash, 2/3rds of remaining money owed. So Weber having been paid more up front makes a buyout beneficial compared with the huge looming cap hit. There is another consideration to be had. Presumably a compliance buy out erases future cap recapture penalties. It would actually be in Nashville’s beer interest to trade for Weber and buy him out, or give Montreal a huge sweetener to buy out Weber to avoid the massive penalty they are facing down the road.
  6. Provost

    Judd Brackett

    You haven’t worked in an office before? Gear’s role hasn’t changed, they just promoted him. They chose NOT to promote Brackett. There is no limit on number of AGMs they can have. It absolutely shows who is valued and on the way up. They are part of a small organization and Brackett was not chosen to be part of the senior management team. There is also the added statement that Benning made at the time about it being done to allow him and Weisbrod to get out and be more involved in scouting.
  7. Provost

    Judd Brackett

    I got a lot of heat saying this back when just Gear was promoted and Benning also threw a little shade at Brackett publicly by making two statements. “Gear’s promotion allows myself and Weisbrod to take a bigger role in scouting”, and “We promoted him (Brackett) from a part-time scout to full-time. We have offered him a contract, and will see what happens. It contrasted a lot with what he said about Gear and instead of the stock public answer of “Judd is a really talented and valuable member of our team, and we are working towards getting a contract done”... he suggested that a take it or leave it contract offer was on the table, while putting him in his place with the reminder he was recently only a part-time guy. At the same time we were getting reports from local media that Brackett was a Linden guy and wanted assurances of how much day he would have in the scouting department.
  8. It will be interesting to look beyond who we would buy out (obvious), but also what other impacts it would have. There will be a bunch of solid NHL veterans suddenly available who are legit players but just overpaid on terrible contracts. Can you scoop up a local guy like Turris for $1-2 million on a one year contract? He can play centre or wing. Seabrook, Ladd, P.K. Subban, Tyler Johnson, Gostisbiere? Lots of names of real players who could end up on the market and be worried more about resurrecting their careers and/or winning than money which they would have already pocketed . Will it also reduce the price for UFAs to have a bunch more on the market? Can we weaponize it and trade away another bad contract to be bought out by another team who doesn’t have one of their own to really worry about.
  9. I think Jake is probably the odd man out in a numbers game and has a good chance of getting traded (especially if we manage to res-sign Toffoli). There just aren't that many spaces on that side, and it gets worse next year when Podkolzin will almost certainly be on the team. Virtanen gets a solid asset back and will become less of a deal on his new contract. 2020-21: Toffoli, Boeser, Leivo, MacEwan on RW 2021-22: Toffoli, Boeser, Podkolzin, MacEwan.. Leivo gets pushed to depth guy or can also easily play LW. I don't think that is the right target though... the long rumoured Ristolainen move would be a lot more suitable for our needs. You get your top pairing all situations RD to go with Edler (though you don't want to play Risto the 25 minutes a game he was playing some years in Buffalo as he isn't that player)... it makes all the pairings work out properly and replaces Tanev for similar money and a lot younger. There are probably other targets out there, but we basically need an Edler for the right side... or a Tanev who is several years younger. We need decent size, good 5 on 5 defensive ability... add in a pinch of physicality and that would be ideal. Dumba is always talked about, we probably missed the boat on guys like Philipe Myers from Philly and Marcus Petterson... they should have been targets instead of signing our Myers. Severson from Jersey would be dandy, but expensive considering his age and contract. The list isn't crazy long for someone to shore up our right side. Stecher and Tanev aren't too far down the list of guys that could be available to be gotten... and we could just re-sign them. Maybe you try to sign one of them to a shorter term deal and punt the ball down a year or two and see if one of our internal guys like Tryamkin works out. Hopefully Benning has some magic up his sleeve to find a player because we don't currently have a good succession plan to make up pairing in a way Green likes to deploy them
  10. I can't see the scaling of salaries agreed to like that. It means players with existing contracts (which is most of them) voting to give some money back to the owners to then spend like crazy people on the few UFAs out there. Increasing escrow would take money evenly out of each player's pocket based on the existing formulas in place... similar to what you are saying but more fair and using existing CBA language. I am confident there will be some sort of negotiated deal to even out the escrow a little so there isn't a huge hit this year... but at the cost of a flat cap for longer.
  11. I agree and the thing that screws up the fit is having Myers in that spot right now. I take Tryamkin at $2-2.5 per season for a 3-4 year term over Myers at $6 million for our third pairing and see how he progress les over a season or two. I am referring to how he fits with our existing pairings and not whether I want him on the team or not. I have been cheerleading for him for years. I don’t see Myers as a top 4, and I don’t see Tryamkin as a top 4 (at least this season aside from spot injury duty).
  12. It is the KHL, it is not comparable to the NHL in the slightest. Not in quality of players, pace, or intensity Guys like ex-Canucks Linden Vey and Nick Jensen are among the top producers in the entire league. Playing and defending against them isn’t the same as defending against McDavid and Ovechkin. He isn’t even dominating in the KHL, going into a season with him as a top 4 is asking for trouble. Maybe he can get there at some point... but there is no information that exists yet to suggest it is likely going to happen. I am a huge fan, and hope we sign him... but for those expecting him to be some sort of stalwart right out of the gate, they are asking a lot and it is more likely to fail than succeed.
  13. It could end up being true, but I just don't see him being counted on for that many minutes right out of the gate. He was a marginal 3rd pairing guy when he was in the league before, it is likely at least a year or two in the NHL before you can hope for him to be playing that significant a role (at least well)>
  14. I just don’t see how he fits with any of our pairings. Having Myers kind of messes things up. Both are 3rd pairing RD, and you don’t really want either in the top 4 (at least initially in the case of Tryamkin). I don’t know how well Tryamkin plays on the left, which is really the only spot for him, and that would still require us to sign/trade for two top 4 RD. Maybe eventually Tryamkin could partner with Hughes, but that is a lot of minutes to ask of him even if you take away the special teams. Green would also not want Tryamkin partnered with a rookie like Juolevi. Unless things change, the only really likely pairings could be Hughes-Tanev Edler-Rafferty Tryamkin-Myers Benn or Hughes-Tanev Edler-Myers Benn-Tryamkin ... but neither of these gives you a good shut down paring. Putting Hughes and Myers together is possible, but that didn’t work as well as having Tanev there.... I want him to come back, but don’t want to pencil him into the top 4 where we have the spot. I don’t have faith that Benning can completely rejig the defence and improve it.