Provost

Members
  • Content count

    3,294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Provost last won the day on April 14 2016

Provost had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,861 Gaming the system

About Provost

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,179 profile views
  1. Yep... I actually see Vegas picking best player available from each team and not trying to craft a roster directly from their picks. if they have to choose between Gaunce and Sbisa... there is no competition in asset value. A very reasonable strategy could be to pick 10-11 D in expsnsion, and then flip a bunch of them for top six forwards or high draft picks to stock their farm system.
  2. The reason most of the Tanev and Toronto deals don't make sense is that they give us a bunch of OK spare parts in exchange. Benning has proven he can find those kind of guys for cheap elsewhere, either as trades (Baertschi, Granlund, Boucher, Goldobin, Dahlen) or for free from college (Stecher, Molino). What Benning can't find except for trading a valuable piece in return is a legit top 6 forward or a younger puck moving D. We only have a few valuable trade chips in Edler/Tanev/Hutton, you don't spend those bullets for quantity over quality. If anything you add something to those guys to get the best ONE asset back. A real top 6 winger pushes the other guys down the roster and has them playing against worse competition, making them and the whole team better.
  3. Expose Sutter and keep Lowry. As it stands now, it is virtually 100% that Sbisa is taken. Gaunce has effectively zero value as he is eminently replaceable. I don't think folks are really grasping how valuable D will be after expansion. Right now, more than half the team in the league are short a top 4 guy, basically everyone is short for a real NHL calibre three pairings. After expansion, that becomes MOST teams in the league will be short a top 4 D because the ones that have four good players will have one snatched. McPhee has states that he is building from the defence (makes sense), he will pick at least six top four guys... and more than likely a few extra to use on the trade market in exchange for some scoring help as will have a thin top 6. Sbisa is a solid #4/5 guy. For us his value is that it means one of our actual trade chips (Tanev, Hutton, Edler) is more easily moved after expansion at an inflated price when teams are scrambling to fill the sudden holes they have. So, under the Lowry trade proposal we probably end up losing Sutter instead of Sbisa. We are slightly worse at that 3C position (though Lowry has more upside and may even complement his linemates better), but we gain a much better forward in the top 6 by being able to trade a D. It nets out better for us because the trade value of a D is greater than the value of a 3C.
  4. There is a pretty reasonable chance that Winnipeg is forced to protect 4 defencemen. That means Lowry would be exposed and very likely taken for nothing. He seems like the ideal age, and the right attributes to slot in as our 3rd line centre. More than 50% face offs... big... physical.,, has decent skill level. He would complement a couple of smaller skilled wingers on that line. If Winnipeg puts him on the market, what would the cost be? Would it be a 2nd round pick? Plus an average prospect? Prices should be depressed as many teams won't want to pick up a player that means they lose another one in expansion. For us it makes Sutter expendable and exposed at expansion. I have no real heartache with that considering where we are as a team. If Sutter is taken (which he probably would be), that also means we keep Sbisa and can flip another D after expansion to get a legit top 6 forward. It leaves us with a lineup something like: Sedin-Horvat-Boeser (trade return for Tanev)-Sedin-Eriksson Baertschi-Lowry-Goldobin Boucher-Gaunce-Virtanen/Dorsett Megna-Molino Edler-Stecher Hutton-Gudbranson Sbisa-Biega Pedan
  5. But we did retain on Hansen too though I thought. I don't know how we trade Miller who is a UFA and retain salary on him.
  6. I have no idea what motivation Nashville would have to disrupt the formula that has so far gotten them to their first Stanley Cup final. Subban for Weber swap is one of the biggest factors in their success.
  7. It is a more complex thing than just height. Most of our bigger guys entirely lack physicality and small guys like Biega play tougher than their size. We do need physical players for sure, and I remember hearing Linden recently saying that we needed a more traditional 4th line because we didn't have the size and physicality in the top nine like some other teams who could afford to roll four lines. There is a reason they were interested in Kane and why they picked up Gudbranson.
  8. Who knows really, if 6 teams fold or go to a lower semi-pro league that is a lot of players looking for work. it probably means there is "some" chance of his return, but all his reasons for leaving still exist.
  9. I actually don't know Montreal's expansion situation and whether they figure to lose him anyways. ... or whether as above, it would be part of a package.
  10. It does seem like Benning has decided he is OK with undersized skill wingers to amp up the speed of the team. If they are paired with bigger, tougher centres and some size on the blue line it can work fine. Not all of our guys are going to work out, so adding extra depth is fine as long as the cost is reasonable. It doesn't seem like a deal that would happen now unless it is part of a package, since it only means Byron or someone else is eligible to be plucked for expansion. It could be a defensive move hoping to have a forward asset that Vegas would want so we keep Sbisa. D after expansion will be worth a ton because at least six more teams will lose a top 4 guy, and half the league is already trying to add to their top 4 without that.
  11. Take it for what it's worth, couldn't cost much and just adds to the tweener winter depth, by would t be horrible. http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Canucks-making-play-for-Paul-Byron/1/85316
  12. That isn't what folks are saying... it is trading him (and eating one of their goalie contracts) for the 3rd OA outright, not for trading up.
  13. Yep, that is the proposition. it is a better deal for Dallas than some people are some people are suggesting. Mackenzie has expressed doubts that can find a top 6 forward or top 4 D in return for that pick at all. In this deal they get a top pairing D who also happens to possess some of the best advanced stats in the league.... they also get to blow off a bunch of salary. Not many teams are in a place where they can give them that kind of value because Tanev is certainly more useful over the next couple of years than the pick will be and we will be downgrading in exchange for potential future upside.
  14. Almost none of them go the UFA route and likely that loophole will be closed the next CBA.
  15. It certainly likely means his intentions were sincere in going back. You really need to want something if you are willing to leave millions on the table to get it. Remember, most NHL careers are short... he could hurt himself and be done by 25. Maybe he isn't thinking that far ahead, heck he is a kid, but he has given up the chance to ensure that generations of his family are taken care of financially. Maybe in a couple of years he starts thinking "what if" and the lure of the best league in the world beckons.