Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Provost

Members
  • Posts

    11,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Provost

  1. Ya, a huge physical shut down D who can both sides and has averaged 20 minutes a game for years… that isn’t any good at all. No one is talking about giving up a fortune for him but he would immediately be the best player on our right side. Hoglander, Dermott, and Poolman makes the money pretty even. They get a couple young players to fit their age curve.
  2. To be fair… it was always as an extra throw in. Not a main piece.
  3. Hoglander plus money moving out (Poolman, Dermott, Dickenson, Pearson) for Edmunson. Edmunson can play both sides just like Schenn can. Kuzmenko-Miller-Podkolzin Garland-Petterson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Mikheyev Dickenson-Lazar-Joshua Hughes-Edmunson OEL-Myers Rathbone-Schenn Burroughs
  4. I wonder what the price tag is... $1 million or under presumably. It does seem like his camp overplayed their hands with reported asks from the Canucks over $2 million. He is a good 4th line player, but was just in the right place and the right time to have success here. He would be a 13th/14th guy on this current roster.
  5. If Chychrun was here I didn't have Rathbone on my roster... I am assuming he has to actively work himself off the roster to not be in the opening 23 as it stands.
  6. I don’t have Rathbone on my roster… so there would be another piece if it was needed. I think it is a totally fair offer for Chychrun… the cap dump money going the other way to make the money work is what they might balk at. Add in Chychrun and I say we should be legitimately expected to be a top 3 team in the division this year. Our roster now on paper seems like a bubble/wildcard team.
  7. It is exciting, but saying we are definitely a top team is just genuinely silly and not based in any sort of reality. To get to still missing the playoffs, most of our top players had career years last year, some by a huge margin. That would be really unusual to get repeated. You certainly can’t just assume improvement by the young players and not also account for someone else to fall off. Miller Demko Petterson Hughes Garland Myers had his best +/- of his career and was more effective than he has been since his rookie campaign The key players were also healthy, not losing many games to injury. Maybe magic happens and we become a top team… but that would be a shocking dark horse miracle to most of the hockey world, including the team brass who keep saying there is a lot of work to do and they didn’t get what they wanted accomplished. Pundits are putting our team right on the playoff bubble which seems pretty fair. .
  8. We had all those players except the two Russians… one has been a 3rd liner and the other hasn’t played an NHL game…. And we weren’t even a playoff team. Not how how adding two mid range (at best) guys turns us into a “top team for sure”. I mean we can be hopeful and excited, but those are whacky expectations. Maybe that is why people here get so depressed, get all insane and unrealistic and then freak out because those unrealistic expectations aren’t met.
  9. The title of the thread is literally “In Season Tournaments” and I went on to detail what that meant with an example of how the NBA is planning it. Mini tournaments involving regular season games. You responded with two entirely unrelated rants… about shortening the season and how inter league tournaments are dumb. …. so ya, it is fair to say that stuff isn’t what is being talked about.
  10. I don't think people are familiar with this concept. Imagine just regular season games for 3 weeks in late January where the league just splits into divisions or some other non divisional format and those teams play all their games against each other for that time period. The team with the most points at the end of it wins a meaningful prize of some sort. Say they put all their divisional games into that "tournament" format and the rankings from that is how home ice advantage was determined in the first couple of rounds of the playoffs? Add in a trophy of some sort, a bonus for players, and the right to decide what charity a pool of money went to. Non playoff team's draft lottery rankings could be partly or fully based on their results of these tournaments maybe as a way to dissuade tanking a whole season. Like the more points you got in this tournament counts as half the weight of how you are ranked for the draft... so by actually trying in the tournament you could improve your draft odds. You don't have to do it by division... you could have the "Original Six Cup" or some other way of splitting up the teams if you wanted (Cascadia Cup kind of thing). It makes the worst period of the season more meaningful.
  11. That isn't remotely what is being talked about or what the NBA is planning. They are games within the regular season against teams within the league. Also, no one is shortening the season... they aren't cutting their revenue by 20%, it is just a non starter.
  12. It isn't adding to the schedule... they are games within the season that are formatted in a way as a mini tournament.
  13. I posted about this a few times in the last decade or so and have long thought it would be a good way to add some interest to the dog days of the regular season in Jan-Feb. The NBA just announced an in season tournament. https://thespun.com/.amp/nba/look-heres-the-current-framework-for-nba-in-season-tournament This mirrors soccer leagues who do the same thing. Certain regular season games count towards an extra prize or trophy as a mini tourney. The NHL could do the same thing and then maybe add to or replace the All-Star game format with the finals of the tourney. They could also make it mean something like have bonuses, charity donations, decide who gets home ice in the first round of the playoffs, draft lottery odds affected by it somehow, etc. The season has become so long that lots of games are almost unwatchable as the players try to slog through and try to preserve effort and energy. This could add a little excitement. Anyone have thoughts on formats that would be entertaining for fans as well as players?
  14. I could totally buy into the original JR idea of basically planning for two years from now and focussing on players who will be hitting their primes by then. In that context, trading Miler for younger players, prospects, and picks made sense. With him signed, I don’t think it is smart to just sit back and let whatever happens happen and hope we can find better players in free agency for the same or less than our veteran players who have contracts expiring. We have 1-2 surplus top nine winger and picks as currency right now to solve a pretty obvious problem on defence (now and for succession planning as Myers and Schenn leave). Not often a player the calibre, age, and contract value of Chychrun come up. If there are other options I am also open to them. In my mind, we are two upgrades on RD from being a legit playoff team for years to come and one that could build as a group to do some damage. most of our other roster spots are filled with young guys or veterans lien a Miller signed to term. The rest is just shuffling around bottom of the roster to find the right fits. There are good value veterans, college free agents, unqualified RFAs, etc who can be found to fill those holes at low cost…. Especially if players think of the team as one they have a chance to win with. We would be hoping to find a Chychrun level players with the picks we would be trading for him. Having him also means there is one less roster spot to fill and less need for a prospect to immediately come in.
  15. So read through your post slowly and think through your own logic comparing the two players. The kid is getting paid too much compared with A 99 point Miller? Even by your own admission Miller isn’t getting paid for being a 99 point player… he is getting underpaid now and overpaid later on in his contract. So why the hell do you keep comparing the two and referring to what a 99 point Miller? Yet again, Stutzle didn’t get a contract assuming he is going to be a regular 99 point player over the course of it. That would be a much bigger contract… just like Miller’s would be if it was a 1-2 year term and he could be expected to maintain his production level over the course of its term. If Stutzle reaches a PPG during his prime, that is a pretty good contract, especially considering cap inflation by the time he is in his prime and a young Ottawa team might be ready to compete.
  16. Any 28 or 29 year old who can’t get signed to a contract like the poster I responded and said was the case because they are getting pushed out by young guys. If you are that age, right in your prime, and can’t get an NHL team interested enough to give you league minimum… you are mediocre at best. Sorry I was giving them too much credit. There is no need to overpay for “veteran leadership”. Not all veterans have any leadership qualities. There are also good deals to be had for veterans like Tim Schaller types who bring all you need about being a pro.
  17. You mean when Miller was gifted top six minutes because his team sucked? I mean it was a bottom feeder team playing Loui Erikkson and Sam Sagner in top six roles. Also, before he got to the Canucks and the only time he matched Stutzle’s output… half his goals were on the PP, he wasn’t exactly being stymied from playing premium minutes. Also, playing on a sucky team that can’t generate offense isn’t really a path to inflate you stats.
  18. So aside from the fact you are ignoring my entire post because you don’t have an evidence based argument aside your feelings. Here is some more very well researched data (I know you think data is stupid… but it is objective reality). Betting on a 20 year old high end young player progressing is a much safer better than a 30 year old not declining. On the former, it is more lielly to happen than not… on the latter, it is extremely unlikely. You are making a completely disingenuous argument pretending anyone is relating Millers current production to Stutzle’s.
  19. One of the false arguments here is that a 99 point player is worth $8 million. On a 1-3 year contract, Miller would easily be earning $9.5 or more for that production. Some of his expected decline is priced into his contract. Stutzle producing a point per game is worth the contract they gave him. That is the price for a PPG player… anything more is gravy.
  20. Miller has only been at Miller level for 1 year his entire career. The kid is way past Miller level at the same age. He has only played a season and a half and at 20 is beyond what Miller was at 25 fully into his prime. In Miller’s first 7 seasons he only matched Stutzle’s production once. It was only when he got here recently that he exceeded Stutzle’s production level by even a single point. It isn’t a big leap at all to think that Stutzle will manage to have a career year hitting 99 points. There is risk, but that it is a reasonable bet to make… especially if you are a new Ottawa owner trying to prove the team is on the way up and not just auctioning players off when they get expensive.
  21. Nobody thinks that a 99 player in their prime is overpaid at $8 million. Many people (inside and outside the market) think that by the time that player is 37 and the contract is finishing... they will likely not be a 99 point player. If you haven't understood that despite literally hundreds of posts by various people explaining it repeatedly... then you are being willfully ignorant at this point.
  22. None of that makes any issue at the bargaining table that could result in a strike or lockout. Young players and old players don't each get to have delegations trying to bargain on their own behalf with the owners. Internal PA struggles and decisions literally have nothing to do with collective bargaining. They decide internally what their bargaining position and asks are... then they come to the table. Veteran players can be as mad as they want, and if they stack the bargaining committee enough with reps who believe as they do... they could make a change to restrict younger player's salaries and benefit themselves at the younger players' expense. They take that to the bargaining table and the league says fine because it doesn't impact them or their percentage of HRR at all and there is no business reason to have a fight about it. and is probably slightly beneficial that older players have more league wide name recognition and might drive a couple more butts to seats than a kid who is probably mostly only known in their own market. No strike or lockout.
  23. I don’t know how to make it any more clear. A lockout or strike only happens when the two sides bargaining have some sort of impasse. Your scenario doesn’t even remotely involve that. You are saying that because veteran players don’t like younger players getting paid well, they are going to go on strike against each other? It isn’t even a bargaining issue with the league… it is an internal committee issue at the PA with what changes they would ask for. Here is how it would go… PA: We want a CBA change that alters how we allocate our portion of HRR between our own members a little by restricting 2nd contracts. League: It doesn’t affect our bottom line or percentage of HRR, we don’t particularly give a shit. We certainly aren’t going to have a lockout or strike that will cost us billions of dollars over something that costs us zero dollars. That is even going along with the unlikely premise that the PA would willingly try to bargain more restrictions on their own members’ ability to get market rates for their production.
  24. You are still not seemingly able to get your mind around the difference between the age a contract is signed vs. The years it covers. There is a ton of data around historical expected trends of when a player peaks and when they decline. Teams are smarter now and can project production over the term of the contract. A well pedigreed 20 year who is already producing 58 points is very likely to be above a PPG average player over the course of 21-29 year old seasons. That makes giving him a contract a pretty good bet, especially with a big cap jump early into its term Conversely, a 29 year old player who scored close to a PPG during his prime is very likely going to be in serious decline by the 2nd half of a contract with the same term and not earn that contract. You keep suggesting that paying for past performance is what the league should be doing and not paying for actual performance during the contract signed. That is just terrible logic and woidl ensure a team is a loser.
  25. I don’t know if you are understanding what term is in regards to contracts. That is more important than the year the player signs the deal, which is how you are trying to frame it. This contract is for an excellent player and goes from when the player is 21-29…. His entire expected peak career performance. No one has an issue paying an excellent 28 or 29 year old for 1-2 years, that is just plain false. It is paying them for years well into their 30’s that is the issue when they aren’t performing as well. Older veterans still get overpaid compared with expected performance… you see a lot more anchor contracts for guys in their 30’s than guys who are 25… so the pendulum hasn’t even swung enough to be fair. Miller just got a contract for example that is likely to age poorly by the end… it is just the way of things in the NHL. If you are suggesting it is wrong to pay excellent younger players instead of mediocre older players… that is just silly logic to me. Again, why would this be any sort of issue resulting in a strike or lockout? It is an internal PA thing about how they want to divvy up their own piece of the pie and not an issue that the league is going to care about at all as it doesn’t change what sticks in their pockets.
×
×
  • Create New...