Rob_Zepp Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Interesting thread to read - you largely get from the majority of posts that: - Canucks have unlimited ability to take on bad contracts - Chris Tanev is worth a high first round pick - Edler is much better than any of us realize - Every other GM in the NHL is interested in making their team worse and the Vancouver Canucks better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 22 hours ago, cripplereh said: says who we need a goalie??? and one that has not been good for more then three seasons??? plus he is not a playoff goalie case we make it, no thanks at all Well we have Marky and from what we hear he'll be the starter so bringing in one of Dallas's 2 goalies to be a competant back up for a season and if whoever we eneded up with didn't fit in we buy him out to begin next season. I doubt we are going after one of Dallas's goalies to make a play off run that would be stupid, were just taking a bad contract to obtain the 3rd over all pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Just now, Sbriggs said: Well we have Marky and from what we hear he'll be the starter so bringing in one of Dallas's 2 goalies to be a competant back up for a season and if whoever we eneded up with didn't fit in we buy him out to begin next season. I doubt we are going after one of Dallas's goalies to make a play off run that would be stupid, were just taking a bad contract to obtain the 3rd over all pick The buyout window closes on 30 June. A 2nd window can open up for teams who have a player going to arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Just now, mll said: The buyout window closes on 30 June. A 2nd window can open up for teams who have a player going to arbitration. Right I meant they use him for a season and buy him out next season thinking Demko might be ready to step in to back up marky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 minute ago, Sbriggs said: Right I meant they use him for a season and buy him out next season thinking Demko might be ready to step in to back up marky They both only have one year left on their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Just now, mll said: He only has one year left on his contract. Well that works out perfect by my standard then, use him for a year then let Demko step in, seems like a good deal for the Canucks to obtain the 3rd OA pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Sbriggs said: Well we have Marky and from what we hear he'll be the starter so bringing in one of Dallas's 2 goalies to be a competant back up for a season and if whoever we eneded up with didn't fit in we buy him out to begin next season. I doubt we are going after one of Dallas's goalies to make a play off run that would be stupid, were just taking a bad contract to obtain the 3rd over all pick or bring someone up from our minors which makes way more sense then adding a goalie we do not need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 2 hours ago, cripplereh said: or bring someone up from our minors which makes way more sense then adding a goalie we do not need Ya i don't necessarily disagree but if we HAVE to take a bad contract to obtain the 3rd OA pick and we need a goalie anyways I don't think its a bad idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I can say with contracts expiring this year and next we were up against the cap and should not be to far off this year, so to me NO bad contracts that really will not help us instead see what we got which a rebuilding team should do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 13 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: Well we are judging Seabrooks value today not a year from now. Right now he is a better player with a lot more value then Biega, you would be lucky to get a 6th round pick for Biega. Seabrook is only 32 YO had 39 points this year and was a +5........that's a better plus minus rating than Tanev or anyone else on our team not to mention he would have been 4th in scoring on "our" team but hey he's washed up right? To even suggest Seabrooks value is as low as you suggest is just ridiculous IMO. We are not valuing Seabrook on just this year or next year, but on his whole contract, which pays him nearly 7 million a year until he's 39 years old. You can't just trade for Seabrook and after a couple years say you don't want him anymore. 42 points is good but he plays on the hawks so that helps his point total. He'd make the canucks better in the short term but the Canucks are going to be terrible for the next couple years regardless of whether they have Seabrook or not. Plus minus is such a flawed stat in so many ways. The 3 top players in the league last season in plus minus were all on Minnesota. Its a team stat. Its like trying to use wins and losses to tell if a goaltender is good or not. I understand you value him more than I do and I'm ok with that. As a fit for this team though it just doesn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 8 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: I understand you value him more than I do and I'm ok with that. As a fit for this team though it just doesn't work When did i ever say he would be a fit on our team? Lets not put words in my mouth....our entire conversation is only about the fact that you value Biega more than Seabrook. 9 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: 42 points is good but he plays on the hawks 39 points not 42, maybe next year is 42 points 9 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: You can't just trade for Seabrook and after a couple years say you don't want him anymore Sure you can, they can do what they want. Even a buyout would be possible, of retirement...just saying. 9 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: Plus minus is such a flawed stat in so many ways. NHL Possession Metrics Corsi (All) Season Age Team Lg GP TOI CF CA CF% 2015-16 30 CHI NHL 81 1847.9 1764 1778 49.8 2016-17 31 CHI NHL 79 1728.9 1741 1696 50.7 Career NHL 773 17643.3 16616 15618 51.5 Seems to me you're a corsi stat kinda guy, hmmmm seems like he had better corsi stats this year then he did last year....imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 22 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: When did i ever say he would be a fit on our team? Lets not put words in my mouth....our entire conversation is only about the fact that you value Biega more than Seabrook. 39 points not 42, maybe next year is 42 points Sure you can, they can do what they want. Even a buyout would be possible, of retirement...just saying. NHL Possession Metrics Corsi (All) Season Age Team Lg GP TOI CF CA CF% 2015-16 30 CHI NHL 81 1847.9 1764 1778 49.8 2016-17 31 CHI NHL 79 1728.9 1741 1696 50.7 Career NHL 773 17643.3 16616 15618 51.5 Seems to me you're a corsi stat kinda guy, hmmmm seems like he had better corsi stats this year then he did last year....imagine that. Are you trying to suggest that at 32 years of age Seabrook is on the upswing? The blackhawks just got swept in the first round and Seabrook had no points but somehow even though the Hawks are on a decline that Seabrook is on the rise? That is clearly what you are trying to suggest and that is just mind boggling. You also suggest that Seabrook could just retire? You do realize that if a player retires the team still has the rest of their contract count against their cap. I'm going to say I'm glad you are not our gm and leave it at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 2 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: Are you trying to suggest that at 32 years of age Seabrook is on the upswing? The blackhawks just got swept in the first round and Seabrook had no points but somehow even though the Hawks are on a decline that Seabrook is on the rise? That is clearly what you are trying to suggest and that is just mind boggling. You also suggest that Seabrook could just retire? You do realize that if a player retires the team still has the rest of their contract count against their cap. I'm going to say I'm glad you are not our gm and leave it at that Your comprehension is lacking and you put words into peoples mouths. Biega will never be worth anywhere close to what Seabrook is worth period. If i were you i'd be saying things like "are you suggesting Biega is on the upswing?" Or "Biega is worth a first round pick" . The only thing boggling is your assumptions and player values. Throw another shrimp on the barbie mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Interesting to watch a debate between two people who don't want to understand each other but will say, without throwing fuel on fire, that to compare ability to trade Biega with that of trading Seabrook and "that" contract is almost impossible. First, in Biega's best possible shift in his best possible condition and best possible scenario of things working out in his favour, he would still be 1/10th the player Seabrook wth the flu and a broken skate would be. At the same time, RIGHT NOW, based upon contract left and size of it AND the fact that Seabrook is not as good as he was and will NOT be improving as he gets older, trading him and his entire contract (e.g. no retention) would be nearly impossible unless trading for an equally bad contract - Biega could conceivably be a more valuable trading piece in some ways as you can package him etc. which you cannot hide Seabrook in a deal as he is like an elephant in a fridge - you cannot help but notice. Continue your debate - it is interesting but realize I don't think either of you wants to hear the other person. Perhaps my post will give you a mutual target to find common ground and that you will BOTH disagree with my post and therefore actually have come to agree on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 On 2017-6-12 at 2:08 PM, canuckmen84 said: 2nd trade isn't worth it you say !?? Biega for A 20 goal scorer and a to pair dman isn't good enough for you. Would you like crosby for Biega? Or is that not worth it too because of his cap hit...? Wow just wow.... I think you are the one putting words into people's mouths. I don't think anyone thinks Seabrook is an inferior player to Biega. If there was no salary cap there wouldn't be a discussion. There is though. I like Hartman and think that is overpayment to dump Seabrook. It makes sense for some contending teams to want Seabrook for a cup run. A contending team would offer something much better than Alex Biega for the 2 of them. That being said Seabrook doesn't fit the canucks time line at all and would kill us on his last couple years. We'll have Luongo's recapture penalty hitting us in his last year's and those combined would not allow the canucks to be competative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 On 2017-6-18 at 4:14 AM, Rob_Zepp said: Interesting to watch a debate between two people who don't want to understand each other but will say, without throwing fuel on fire, that to compare ability to trade Biega with that of trading Seabrook and "that" contract is almost impossible. First, in Biega's best possible shift in his best possible condition and best possible scenario of things working out in his favour, he would still be 1/10th the player Seabrook wth the flu and a broken skate would be. At the same time, RIGHT NOW, based upon contract left and size of it AND the fact that Seabrook is not as good as he was and will NOT be improving as he gets older, trading him and his entire contract (e.g. no retention) would be nearly impossible unless trading for an equally bad contract - Biega could conceivably be a more valuable trading piece in some ways as you can package him etc. which you cannot hide Seabrook in a deal as he is like an elephant in a fridge - you cannot help but notice. Continue your debate - it is interesting but realize I don't think either of you wants to hear the other person. Perhaps my post will give you a mutual target to find common ground and that you will BOTH disagree with my post and therefore actually have come to agree on something. Naa you hit the nail on the head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 8 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: ere is though. I like Hartman and think that is overpayment to dump Seabrook. 8 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: I don't think anyone thinks Seabrook is an inferior player to Biega Well.....this is all i have been waiting to hear from you as you have been implying the opposite. Over payment is an under statement though, Statistically speaking (not just points) Seabrook has not regressed and was ranked 30th in the league in points by a defense man. He is 32 like i mentioned (meaning he has some good years left in him) throw in Hartman a 22 yo 1st round draft pick who just scored 19 goals and it just looks ridiculous that Biega could be in the same conversation. This is all strictly based on values, not Seabrook coming to Van city and yes his contract sucks but who ever acquires him could still get some good years out of him and then chose to buy him out at age 35 or 36 (hypothetically of course) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 On 20/06/2017 at 3:38 AM, canuckmen84 said: Well.....this is all i have been waiting to hear from you as you have been implying the opposite. Over payment is an under statement though, Statistically speaking (not just points) Seabrook has not regressed and was ranked 30th in the league in points by a defense man. He is 32 like i mentioned (meaning he has some good years left in him) throw in Hartman a 22 yo 1st round draft pick who just scored 19 goals and it just looks ridiculous that Biega could be in the same conversation. This is all strictly based on values, not Seabrook coming to Van city and yes his contract sucks but who ever acquires him could still get some good years out of him and then chose to buy him out at age 35 or 36 (hypothetically of course) . I actually said Seabrook is a top 4 defense men. I never said anything to the effect that Biega was good at all. Some people still think Seabrook is a top pairing D and if that's what they think that's fine. I think his point totals are boosted by playing on the Black hawks and he's lost much of his ability to defend due to decreased foot speed but even then I think he'd be a 3rd defense men on a contender. 7 million is a fairly steep of a cap hit even next year but he'd make any team he joined better. Biega...well he played a lot of his games as a forward. If he was actually a good defense men he would have likely remained on D. Looking at a buyout for Seabrook isn't as bad as I thought it be. Many owners would likely not be thrilled to be paying a player a lot of money not to play but the actually cap hit isn't large. The only issue is it would be for 6 or 8 years. I still think his value is limited by there being few owners that would commit that amount of dollar. If a team really wanted to go for it and the owner was willing he'd be a good add As for the hawks cap situation it just got interesting with the announcement Hossa may be forced out of hockey due to allergies. If he is able to go on injured reserve then his cap hit comes off and the hawks would be free to sign Panarin. However if he isn't and is forced to retire, the hawks cap situation will have gotten a whole lot worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.