ForsbergTheGreat

Members
  • Content Count

    11,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

ForsbergTheGreat last won the day on June 1 2016

ForsbergTheGreat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,740 Gaming the system

About ForsbergTheGreat

  • Rank
    Canucks Franchise Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,919 profile views
  1. We will likely have to give up some value. But even without LE. After our young guns get locked up. Assuming they don’t take discounts, We’d be looking at 40+ locked up by 6 players with Bo being the only real value contract. That’s what most thought with marleau who’s only owed 1.25 million after July first and comes with a 6.25 cap hit. Didn’t work out so well.
  2. If I’m the leafs I’m firstly interested in Tanev. He fits there need. And kapanen becomes trade bait. Reilly is a 70+ point defensemen. Put someone like tanev who players a simple smart game, next to him and that would a solid top pairing D. But there are plenty of other options too. Hjarmlsson, Larsson, pesce Faulk, Miller vatanen, stralman That’s assuming zaitzev isn’t traded? He’s still a 20 minute guy. Heck even hainsey could come back. They likely bring up Rosen and have dermott play on the right side. Sandin could also make the jump.
  3. If leafs had to pay a first to dump marleau contract for one year. What makes you think Eriksson going to be any easier. Canucks are yet to sign EP, Boeser and Hughes which could easily add another 20-25 million to our books. We also have to extend him marky. If we throw 7-8 at a middle pairing guy like Myers our cap doesn’t look that good anymore.
  4. This has zero to do with a plan and 100% to do with your understanding of basic English. Me implying they are one D away does not equate to me saying they can go back with the same D core and are set. It means they still are “missing” one piece. Now I have better things to do in my day then dumb down a statement to your level.
  5. What part of they are one shut down D away, does not make sense to you. I seriously don’t know how you take what I said and equate that to going back with the same D core? Oldnews time hasn’t been good to you. How could they improve? Guess they are now forced to not make anymore transactions from here on out. Cool story.
  6. I challenge to do the math again. I ignored it the first time you posted this but the fact that you keep posting it shows you don’t understand. There’s one important piece you keep missing.... I believe in you.. you will figure it out. Like I said. Some people get a high stewing over the leafs. “What will they do with their cap. They are so screwed, might as well drop out of the league entirely”. ....Hey that is fun.
  7. Top four is what builds contenders. They are one shutdown RHD from having a solid top 4 Look around the league. A strong top four defines contending D. No team has 6 superstars on the back end. Bruins iced Clifton and grzelcyk as there bottom pairing. sufficient bottom depth is extremely easy to fill as a extremely low cost. if it’s front loaded there’s a good chance they don’t. Not shocking. You take offense against anything that doesnt align with your leafs are doomed mantra. It was less than 12 month ago you were preaching the same thing saying leafs would regress and not be in post season due to the loss of JVR and bozak. I get it. They are a easy team to dislike and it’s a canucks board but that doesn’t mean understanding of the sport has to go out the window. It’s like some people get a high trying to come up with ways to imagine the leafs going back to the paper bag days.
  8. If they lose Marner they aren’t going to sit around with all the extra cap space. They are going to spend it. Likely on one of the other big name RFA’s this year.
  9. If they left Marner walk they are just going to sit on there hands and do nothing. they would have just gained 4 first round picks and opened up a ton of cap space to say... front load offer sheet another player on the market. Say someone like Aho and bank the two extra first round picks they would have obtained. While moving Marleau did cost them a late first. They were able to keep both kapanen and jonhsson which i would say has more value than that 1st. The leafs are really a shutdown D away from really contending and they have more then enough assets to obtain that type of player.
  10. Easily. Tell that to vbrata, hamhuis, and edler. Miller was the easiest option. I get what you are saying but as I already pointed out, It made total sense for them to move out a high cap hit with no NTC, that they weren't utilizing to the fullest. I bet we could have go them down to this years second, But like I said were really pulling hairs. But if you believe that his market value is worth a late first then The conditions don’t benefit canucks. In fact it lowered the real market value of our pick. Certainty of the pick holds more value than uncertainty. Tampa is the one who benefits from the conditions as they took a market value and added higher potential. Either way they get a 1st round pick and now they added potential for and even higher value. The other person who benefits from conditions is JB.
  11. Not really Kucherov and miller were the only two players making over 2 million that don’t have a NTC or NMC. And they for sure aren’t trading the leagues leading scorer. That basically summed up which player was getting dealt Whether anyone wants to accept it or not bolts needed to move cap out. Point is going to get a huge raise and vaseliskiy is up for an extension as of July 1st. They are a team strapped for cash even after letting stralman walk and getting a pass on Callahan. Miller was the lowest man on the totem block and he wasn’t being effectively used to his potential either simply due to bolts depth. Which makes sense on why they were moving him. Did bolts get top value for him. For sure they did. They were able to take a negative situation and walk away with a big smile. Could canucks have paid less. Possibly, but I don’t know if it’s worth splitting hairs over.
  12. You mean like when we traded for a 26 year old power forward who also averaged 20+ goal, 49 point pace seasons by the name of David booth?
  13. Hughes is a great piece. Sorry but that is a completely stupid statement. Why would a team forfeit? Are you disagreeing that a teams chances of winning doesn’t decrease if their #1 D goes down? What does this have to do with canucks need for a core D? Did you happen to see what’s the blues back end look like? Now you’re really on the loose end. What does this have to do with tanking?
  14. That’s true as we don’t know what else JB has cooking and perhaps another trade is in the works. I just feel it’s going to be hard to make a deal without one of our best valued assets. I also have a feeling that we are going to take what D are available in UFA and try to force one of them into being the core player we need. Which usually doesn’t turn out well. It depends on how much it elevates the team. I have a hard time seeing this roster make that much of a playoff splash without that top end D core. So if this move hinders our ability to fill a bigger area of need then it’s not great. But again we will have to see what JB is able to fetch this summer. Nope we for sure likely have to add more. But that 1st is a big value and usually a starting point. We don’t have that starting point anymore. I agree we need to get bigger and that’s why a player like miller will be a great fit. Just not sure if we are at the point to be moving picks to fill that hole when other areas have bigger urgency.
  15. Actually I think you're missing the point. Players like Miller are strong complimentary guys. They are your, Coyle's, Johansson's, Kane's and Hossa's. Players that aren't core foundation pieces, but pieces that help push your core over the top into the next level. And Canucks are not at that spot yet. We still have missing pieces in our core. aka our back end. And You're not getting a core defensemen in UFA, Myers and Gardiner aren't those types (they are miller caliber complementary pieces). Canucks NEED a core piece on that back end. A D you can build around. So instead of trading our most attractive piece at a discounted value for a complimentary filler, we should have been using that to obtain that missing core D. I'm not against trading our first, but at this point we don't have a ton of tradable assets, so the ones we do have, need to go towards packaging up and filling core pieces. In two years if Canucks are back in the playoff spot and looking for a player to get us over the hump. Then you go get that complimentary player (like Gillis thought he was doing with Booth).