[Report] Canucks fire Willie Desjardins

[Gollumpus]

On 4/10/2017 at 6:41 PM, kanucks25 said:

Miller was excellent this season, average the first two. I was always a fan of his, and didn't mind bringing him in for stability, but the contract was too large for a player of his age that is past his prime.

 

Dorsett is a 4th liner. Paying a 3rd rounder, as a "rebuilding team", for an older 4th liner and then giving him a mid-term deal @ 2.65 AAV is... odd. I'd be happy with him at 2/3rds the cost if we acquired him as a free-agent.

 

Sbisa has not "improved greatly", there is no evidence to suggest he has. Yes, he has improved since his first year, but he was possibly the worst regular D-man in the NHL that year, so there wasn't anywhere to go but up. At best he's a 6/7 on a good team and but he's paid like a #4 D-man. Anybody who thinks we should protect him in expansion needs to give their head a shake.

 

Sutter is the epitome of an average player. Average defensively, average offensively, average in all aspects of the game. He's a great skater and great on face-offs but it still translates to average results. He's not exactly a "shutdown center" either, not sure why people think he's a defensive specialist.

 

I've always been a fan of Eriksson but as a team who is just starting the "rebuild", signing a 30+ year-old who is past his prime and has a concussion history to a long-term, lockout-proof, buyout-proof contract is just completely asinine. There is simply no other way around it. He would have been a perfect signing for a contender at 4 years or less, he isn't a fit here.

 

Yes, I wanted us to blatantly tank because all "re-tools" do is get you stuck between a rock and a hard place. You don't accumulate enough high-end prospects (at least not fast enough as you would with a full rebuild) and you aren't good enough to compete, either.

Howdy. Sorry for the late response, it's baseball season so I don't hang out all that much (GO GIANTS!!!!!, even though you're sucking donkey bottom atm).

 

Just curious on a few points as I see a lot of if/then here.

 

Not looking to be argumentative, but what does it matter what Eriksson or Dorsett or even Miller or Sutter get paid if the goal is to tank? If these guys are indeed average, or over the hill  players, or are a risky signing due to past health, what does it matter? The team hasn't been in cap trouble (to my recollection) after Garrison was offloaded to TB and a while later, Bieksa and Kesler were sent to Anaheim. Should the Canucks have signed better players than those listed above, in which case what then happens to the tank? 

 

What would you do with the extra savings of cutting a million (or two) from Eriksson and Miller (or maybe they just aren't signed), and another (or so) from Sutter and Dorsett? We could be talking about as much as $5 - 15 million still in the teams coffers. Other than signing a few undisputed average players or bringing up some guys like Megna or Chaput  to fill the roster do they just sit on that cash (which looks bad considering ownership's commitment to spend to the cap)?

 

I suppose one thing that they could do would be to "sell" some cap space to another team in exchange for a bad contract and high picks/prospects. The downside of this is that you then have a bad contract that you might not want to play here, or could afford to bury in AHL.

 

More later. Baseball.

 

                                                   regards,  G.

[kanucks25]

 

1 hour ago, Gollumpus said:

Not looking to be argumentative, but what does it matter what Eriksson or Dorsett or even Miller or Sutter get paid if the goal is to tank? If these guys are indeed average, or over the hill  players, or are a risky signing due to past health, what does it matter? The team hasn't been in cap trouble (to my recollection) after Garrison was offloaded to TB and a while later, Bieksa and Kesler were sent to Anaheim. Should the Canucks have signed better players than those listed above, in which case what then happens to the tank? 

 

What would you do with the extra savings of cutting a million (or two) from Eriksson and Miller (or maybe they just aren't signed), and another (or so) from Sutter and Dorsett? We could be talking about as much as $5 - 15 million still in the teams coffers. Other than signing a few undisputed average players or bringing up some guys like Megna or Chaput  to fill the roster do they just sit on that cash (which looks bad considering ownership's commitment to spend to the cap)?

 

I suppose one thing that they could do would be to "sell" some cap space to another team in exchange for a bad contract and high picks/prospects. The downside of this is that you then have a bad contract that you might not want to play here, or could afford to bury in AHL.

Just because we're rebuilding doesn't mean that salary cap can be wasted; cap flexibility is a valuable asset. Having free cap spaces opens up the opportunity for potential transactions in the future that would not be possible otherwise. For example, rumor was that the issue in trading Hamhuis to Chicago at last year's deadline was our inability to take on Bickell's contract. Also, as a rebuilder, free cap space allows you to make the kinds of trades that bring in valuable assets attached to bad contracts, like the Teravainen/Bickell and Carrick/Laich trades, for example.

 

1 hour ago, Gollumpus said:

I suppose one thing that they could do would be to "sell" some cap space to another team in exchange for a bad contract and high picks/prospects. The downside of this is that you then have a bad contract that you might not want to play here, or could afford to bury in AHL.

You would have to carefully plan for the future to manage these bad contracts. Know what you can take on, for how long, and when. The Eriksson and Sutter contracts are essentially like those bad contracts, but with no valuable youth asset attached for absorbing the contracts.

[mpt]

12 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Just because we're rebuilding doesn't mean that salary cap can be wasted; cap flexibility is a valuable asset. Having free cap spaces opens up the opportunity for potential transactions in the future that would not be possible otherwise. For example, rumor was that the issue in trading Hamhuis to Chicago at last year's deadline was our inability to take on Bickell's contract. Also, as a rebuilder, free cap space allows you to make the kinds of trades that bring in valuable assets attached to bad contracts, like the Teravainen/Bickell and Carrick/Laich trades, for example.

 

You would have to carefully plan for the future to manage these bad contracts. Know what you can take on, for how long, and when. The Eriksson and Sutter contracts are essentially like those bad contracts, but with no valuable youth asset attached for absorbing the contracts.

Hence why if we were to win the draft lottery and pick 1 or 2, then I'd strongly consider not protecting Sutter in the expansion draft to see if we could rid ourselves of his contract

[Gollumpus]

On 4/20/2017 at 7:47 PM, kanucks25 said:

 

Just because we're rebuilding doesn't mean that salary cap can be wasted; cap flexibility is a valuable asset. Having free cap spaces opens up the opportunity for potential transactions in the future that would not be possible otherwise. For example, rumor was that the issue in trading Hamhuis to Chicago at last year's deadline was our inability to take on Bickell's contract. Also, as a rebuilder, free cap space allows you to make the kinds of trades that bring in valuable assets attached to bad contracts, like the Teravainen/Bickell and Carrick/Laich trades, for example.

 

You would have to carefully plan for the future to manage these bad contracts. Know what you can take on, for how long, and when. The Eriksson and Sutter contracts are essentially like those bad contracts, but with no valuable youth asset attached for absorbing the contracts.

Bold#1 - value of cap space

Yup. This was noted at the end of my previous comments. Thanks for further stressing its importance.

 

Bold#2 - Hamhuis trade

I suspect that this rumor is just that, a rumor.

 

What I believe is the more likely reason for not going through on this potential trade was that the rest of the return for Hamhuis (picks/prospects) was not worth taking on Bickell's contract for the one year remaining (at $4 million). Further, while Bickell was traded with Teravainen to Carolina in the off season (for a 2nd and a 3rd), we do not know that Teravainen was part of the offer for Hamhuis. Personally, I'd have wanted a d-man prospect which the Hawks would be less likely to want to trade.

 

In any event, the Canucks had $6 million to play with just in the money they elected to pay for Eriksson and could easily have covered adding Bickell for one year and a prospect (agree or disagree with that decision is not the issue atm). 

 

Baseball calls.

 

                                                   regards,  G.

 

Bold#3 - Sutter

Still disagree with your low opinion of Sutter, but w/e.

[Gollumpus]

13 hours ago, mpt said:

Hence why if we were to win the draft lottery and pick 1 or 2, then I'd strongly consider not protecting Sutter in the expansion draft to see if we could rid ourselves of his contract

Well, assuming Sedin and Horvat have two of the center positions locked up for next season, and assuming the Canucks do draft a center who makes the team in his first season, then I could see him playing on the third line with Sutter where these two would switch being the center of that line depending on the situation. 

 

The forward group would include: Baertschi, Boeser, Dorsett, Eriksson, Granlund, Horvat, (New Guy), Sedin, Sedin, Sutter and whoever else the team has available (eg. Dahlen, Gaunce, Goldobin, Virtanen and so on)

 

                                                                           regards,  G.

[mpt]

10 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Well, assuming Sedin and Horvat have two of the center positions locked up for next season, and assuming the Canucks do draft a center who makes the team in his first season, then I could see him playing on the third line with Sutter where these two would switch being the center of that line depending on the situation. 

 

The forward group would include: Baertschi, Boeser, Dorsett, Eriksson, Granlund, Horvat, (New Guy), Sedin, Sedin, Sutter and whoever else the team has available (eg. Dahlen, Gaunce, Goldobin, Virtanen and so on)

 

                                                                           regards,  G.

Its not because I don't like Sutter but IMO whomever is on a big contract long term deal that isn't apart of our future, need to go.  The best thing Toronto did besides getting lucky in the draft lottery on the right year was to get rid of all big long term deals.  The Eriksson one is going to come back and bite us in the ass as it ties up money in a player in which will create a cap problem when our young players need big raises. 

 

From a business perspective the best thing the Canucks can do is come out publicly, tell the fans it's going to hurt for a few years, become a cap floor team, lower ticket prices to fill the arena which will generate cash flow positive as we rebuild and give fans what they want to see.  We don't need to be a 75 million cap ceiling bottom 5 producing team, it makes no sense.   Fans do need to realize though that at least 50% of rebuilds don't work and those teams end up rebuilding again.

[Johnny Shotgun]

14 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baseball calls.

 

                                               

 

 

Best value in sports. MLB.tv.  About 150$ a year.  Every game every team.  All games archived you watch them when you want.  Example if for some unknown reason in July you wish to watch a game played in April click on month and date.  If its the Yankees vs the Red Sox you choose which broadcaster to listen to the Yanks or Sox feed.  Video or audio. 

[King Heffy]

On 4/20/2017 at 0:39 PM, DIBdaQUIB said:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion.  No one knows what was communicated between management and ownership but what you describe as WD's deployments in the face of a changing direction are pretty accurate.  Whether ownership was pushing for him to be gone or not, JB really had no choice once WD basically defied his directive .  Who knows if WD was deliberately sending a message or just not capable of icing kids he did not feel had earned the time.  Pretty sure the next coach will have a different focus and will be tasked with getting the kids up to NHL speed ASAP.  It will be painful but hopefully entertaining as well.

Even assuming WD was attempting to win games, playing useless plugs like Megna is not an intelligent way to go about it.  WD quite simply couldn't be trusted to set the lineup and defied management's direct instructions at the end of his term.  If we'd had an NHL coach last season, Tryamkin could very well still be here.

[King Heffy]

On 4/20/2017 at 0:39 PM, DIBdaQUIB said:

I'm pretty much of the same opinion.  No one knows what was communicated between management and ownership but what you describe as WD's deployments in the face of a changing direction are pretty accurate.  Whether ownership was pushing for him to be gone or not, JB really had no choice once WD basically defied his directive .  Who knows if WD was deliberately sending a message or just not capable of icing kids he did not feel had earned the time.  Pretty sure the next coach will have a different focus and will be tasked with getting the kids up to NHL speed ASAP.  It will be painful but hopefully entertaining as well.

No sane coach would insist on dressing Megna unless they were intentionally trying to insult management/.

[Gurn]

6 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

No sane coach would insist on dressing Megna unless they were intentionally trying to insult management/.

How would dressing Megna insult a management team that just signed Megna for the upcoming 2017/18 season?

[DarthMelvin]

Welp.... AV moving on up in the Playoffs....

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 hours ago, gurn said:

How would dressing Megna insult a management team that just signed Megna for the upcoming 2017/18 season?

It would depend on where they played Megna in the lineup wouldn't it?  He's alright as depth but there's no way I want him anywhere near the top six - let alone the 1st line.

[mpt]

4 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

It would depend on where they played Megna in the lineup wouldn't it?  He's alright as depth but there's no way I want him anywhere near the top six - let alone the 1st line.

Or let alone in our top 12.  I was happy when we got goldy, Boucher and dahlen as I was sure Megna Skille and Chapstick were gonners, I was disappointed when I saw the re-signing

[DollarAndADream]

2 hours ago, mpt said:

Or let alone in our top 12.  I was happy when we got goldy, Boucher and dahlen as I was sure Megna Skille and Chapstick were gonners, I was disappointed when I saw the re-signing

Pretty much my thoughts. When I saw the new guys like Goldobin and Boucher coming in, I thought that would finally put Megna/Chaput etc out....but I guess not.

[singing chef]

14 minutes ago, DollarAndADream said:

Pretty much my thoughts. When I saw the new guys like Goldobin and Boucher coming in, I thought that would finally put Megna/Chaput etc out....but I guess not.

The team still needs fodder for the upcoming Expansion Draft and with Megna now signed to a contract extension he is eligible to be exposed.

[mpt]

14 hours ago, singing chef said:

The team still needs fodder for the upcoming Expansion Draft and with Megna now signed to a contract extension he is eligible to be exposed.

Since Boucher also has to be exposed, why didn't we just re-sign him instead.

[King Heffy]

20 hours ago, singing chef said:

The team still needs fodder for the upcoming Expansion Draft and with Megna now signed to a contract extension he is eligible to be exposed.

I wonder what type of pick we'd need to include to convince Vegas to take Megna.

[gino#29]

On 4/13/2017 at 10:19 AM, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the guys a walking soundbite.cry all you want you were here for 3 of the worst years in canuck history,burrows was here for over 10.you took tryamkin with you and wouldn't play pedan,grenier and lots of others and gave ALL the ice time to a bunch of castoff bums like skills,chapoo,and megna.you didn't give 2 s&ts about the development of young players and coached like you were on tilt.even JB had to publicly tell you to play the young players,mostly tryamkin.how did that feel,being told how to do your job.it was one of the most frustrating seasons ever.to know your out of the playoffs and dingbat won't play the prospects.i feel no sympathy for him,if you thumb your nose at your boss you get fired unless your really good.i just read that article on canucks army,they were looking at why tryamkin left and who was to blame.it's obvious its WD,it's like reading an article from someone that watched one game a week.  

[250Integra]

11 minutes ago, gino#29 said:

the guys a walking soundbite.cry all you want you were here for 3 of the worst years in canuck history,burrows was here for over 10.you took tryamkin with you and wouldn't play pedan,grenier and lots of others and gave ALL the ice time to a bunch of castoff bums like skills,chapoo,and megna.you didn't give 2 s&ts about the development of young players and coached like you were on tilt.even JB had to publicly tell you to play the young players,mostly tryamkin.how did that feel,being told how to do your job.it was one of the most frustrating seasons ever.to know your out of the playoffs and dingbat won't play the prospects.i feel no sympathy for him,if you thumb your nose at your boss you get fired unless your really good.i just read that article on canucks army,they were looking at why tryamkin left and who was to blame.it's obvious its WD,it's like reading an article from someone that watched one game a week.