Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Adarsh Sant

Canucks are now the worst team in the league in the last 3 seasons, while spending to the cap

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Well, we don't really need "quality free agents" right now. To put it bluntly, we should suck for the time being. Stockpile plugs that won't demand no trade clauses and sell them off later.

More cap space will help with keeping players like Pettersson and Juolevi when their contracts come up.  With cap space, the Canucks will be able to pay them market value and keep as many of the other young guys as possible.  I'd rather they didn't lose someone like Demko because they couldn't afford to pay a top 5 goalie contract.

 

I know that you know this, but for some reason you're upset at something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

The Canucks averaged 5th place and received two 5th place picks.  Those picks were quite valuable.  The Sabres did the same with 8th place. Other teams fared more poorly.  Last year was a fluke.

Sabres picked second and got Eichel. I could give a &^@# about averaging to fall to a fifth pick. How do you call that successful? Moving up to a first. Keeping a first. Moving up to a second is successful. Averaging a fall down three spots to fifth is a success compared to what I just noted? Not in my world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

We finished 3rd last and 2nd last, and received two 5th place picks lol

Whoops.  I went with @khay's post.  My bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

It could hurt us if its still on the books 5 years from now but for now it shouldn't affect anything Luongos contract was a Mike Gillis exercise and Erikssons contract seems like a pressure move from above.

I'd bet that Luongo is going to stay in the league for as long as there's a team willing to keep him employed.  The only way that I see that contract coming back to bite the Canucks is if he gets hurt or decides he doesn't want to play for any other team than Florida.  If either does happen and the league doesn't cut the Canucks a break on his cap hit, I'm going to be an unhappy camper.  Other teams have gotten breaks for their cap recaptures.

 

As for Loui's contract, that was just a poor decision.  Hopefully JB will find a way to get out from under it before the cap space truly matters.  Like when it's time to pay the young guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

More cap space will help with keeping players like Pettersson and Juolevi when their contracts come up.  With cap space, the Canucks will be able to pay them market value and keep as many of the other young guys as possible.  I'd rather they didn't lose someone like Demko because they couldn't afford to pay a top 5 goalie contract.

 

I know that you know this, but for some reason you're upset at something.

You mentioned "quality free agents" earlier. The one time we actually did go after a quality free agent in Eriksson, it ended up backfiring on us, as we had to hand out a long term, no trade/movement clause at top dollar in order to land him. 

 

However, spending up to the cap by signing plugs such as Vanek, Burmistrov, Gagne, Holm, etc...allows us to dictate the terms of a contract for more than someone like Eriksson, hence we end up with far more workable/movable contracts. We don't sign Holm, we don't end up with Leipsic. We don't sign Vanek, we don't end up with Motte.

 

Personally, I like free assets, and I don't mind the team spending money/cap space in order to load up on plugs that can be moved at the trade deadline when playoff teams are looking to load up on depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rekker said:

Sabres picked second and got Eichel. I could give a &^@# about averaging to fall to a fifth pick. How do you call that successful? Moving up to a first. Keeping a first. Moving up to a second is successful. Averaging a fall down three spots to fifth is a success compared to what I just noted? Not in my world.

I'm misunderstanding @khay's post somehow so I'm going to bow out of this argument since I've already used poor or wrong information.

 

That said, I still don't feel bad for CDC.  A good 80% still got what they wished for.  A lottery that doesn't give the best picks to the neediest teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

You mentioned "quality free agents" earlier. The one time we actually did go after a quality free agent in Eriksson, it ended up backfiring on us, as we had to hand out a long term, no trade/movement clause at top dollar in order to land him. 

 

However, spending up to the cap by signing plugs such as Vanek, Burmistrov, Gagne, Holm, etc...allows us to dictate the terms of a contract for more than someone like Eriksson, hence we end up with far more workable/movable contracts. We don't sign Holm, we don't end up with Leipsic. We don't sign Vanek, we don't end up with Motte.

 

Personally, I like free assets, and I don't mind the team spending money/cap space in order to load up on plugs that can be moved at the trade deadline when playoff teams are looking to load up on depth.

You originally asked about cap space in general and I answered.  Now you're going into detail.  When we go into detail, I and most here will agree with you.  As long as when it comes time to pay the young guys what they are due, then everyone will be happy if the cap space is available.

 

Nobody gives a da*n what money a billionaire like Aquaman has to pay out of his pocket especially for what the tickets cost there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I'm misunderstanding @khay's post somehow so I'm going to bow out of this argument since I've already used poor or wrong information.

 

That said, I still don't feel bad for CDC.  A good 80% still got what they wished for.  A lottery that doesn't give the best picks to the neediest teams.

To be honest I can't recall the sentiment back then. I can say that I would not of been one of them. I've been on record already stating the Avs shouldn't have fallen so far in the draft last year. I don't want to seem as though I just see the draft through my teams eye. I just have an issue with the percentages the bottom three to five teams have of staying in a top draft spot. The pendulum has swung too far now to guard against out and out tanking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quantum said:

Nowhere to go but up from here!

Actually, once they start counting Vegas, every team below them will go down 1 spot. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

“Winning Environment”.

Clearly, the task of that statement is/was false.

 

Ya, when they say that and then proceed to re-sign all our players and return the almost exact lineup next season... you know they are just saying random words.

If they really believe in a winning environment, then half this roster needs to be shipped out for different players and UFA signings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Does anybody really give a $&!# that we're spending close to the cap?

 

Is it your money or something?

 

Guess this thread's existence proves that Vancouver really can't handle a rebuild.

Its not that, and you know its not.


Its that there has been zero effect of that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rekker said:

Better? How that? We have dropped three spots twice now haven't we. Oilers moved up to pick a generational talent . Leafs held their spot to pick a franchise player. Philly and Dallas laughed all the way to the podium with their luck. Jets moved up with their win to pick a kid who may well be the best sniper in the leugue. Please explain how we are doing better than most teams with this new format.

We are doing better on average. There will always be statistical outliers that by chance, pick higher than where they finish in the standings due to winning the lottery.

 

We picked 5th overall in the last two years, compare that to where the rest of the bottom feeders have picked in the last two seasons.

 

Also, even though NJ won a draft lottery, their average draft choice is 6th overall. Below us.

 

The Jets have had 2nd overall and 13th overall so they are drafting 7.5th overall on average.

 

So in terms of draft, we are drafting higher on average compared to these teams. 

 

The lottery system is implemented so that bad teams still get to draft high, which is the case as demonstrated by us having the highest average draft position but to guard against teams tanking on purpose, the top 3 picks can go to anyone. The expectation here is that every team over a long run, teams will have a chance to add a top prospect even in their peak years. It adds a bit of randomness to the process but overall, it maintains the property that bad teams draft high.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xereau said:

Its not that, and you know its not.


Its that there has been zero effect of that money.

The money spent really has not value to the argument its more the poor production of the player(s) we spent that money on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sedin -Sedin- Gagne- Hutton =  20 Million in cap Turn that into 3 mid level UFA's ( or bid on a couple of bigger fish)

(I'd add Ericksson but that would be daydreaming, he's too hard to move,  plus he's a meh PK'er go figure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rekker said:

To be honest I can't recall the sentiment back then. I can say that I would not of been one of them. I've been on record already stating the Avs shouldn't have fallen so far in the draft last year. I don't want to seem as though I just see the draft through my teams eye. I just have an issue with the percentages the bottom three to five teams have of staying in a top draft spot. The pendulum has swung too far now to guard against out and out tanking. 

I remember it very well because the Sabres were flat out tanking back then so I couldn't credibly say much except for the dumbest of the proposals.  Ideas were flying around CDC about how to "not reward" the lowest place teams.  The funny thing was that everybody knew that GMMG had emptied the cabinets to take a run at the cup and that the Canucks were likely to drop in the standings.  Most just didn't think that they'd hit rock bottom.  Now the past "wishes" that came true have come back to bite all Canucks fans on the arse.

 

I'm personally relatively ambivalent about the current lottery system because I can't think of a better alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, khay said:

We are doing better on average. There will always be statistical outliers that by chance, pick higher than where they finish in the standings due to winning the lottery.

 

We picked 5th overall in the last two years, compare that to where the rest of the bottom feeders have picked in the last two seasons.

 

Also, even though NJ won a draft lottery, their average draft choice is 6th overall. Below us.

 

The Jets have had 2nd overall and 13th overall so they are drafting 7.5th overall on average.

 

So in terms of draft, we are drafting higher on average compared to these teams. 

 

The lottery system is implemented so that bad teams still get to draft high, which is the case as demonstrated by us having the highest average draft position but to guard against teams tanking on purpose, the top 3 picks can go to anyone. The expectation here is that every team over a long run, teams will have a chance to add a top prospect even in their peak years. It adds a bit of randomness to the process but overall, it maintains the property that bad teams draft high.

 

Still not buying what your selling. You mentioned both Jets and Devils but they have both had a higher pick than us the last three years. I guess you put a higher value on a higher average. I have a higher value on a top two or one pick. In the end we have different views on what value picks have between the fifth and second and first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I remember it very well because the Sabres were flat out tanking back then so I couldn't credibly say much except for the dumbest of the proposals.  Ideas were flying around CDC about how to "not reward" the lowest place teams.  The funny thing was that everybody knew that GMMG had emptied the cabinets to take a run at the cup and that the Canucks were likely to drop in the standings.  Most just didn't think that they'd hit rock bottom.  Now the past "wishes" that came true have come back to bite all Canucks fans on the arse.

 

I'm personally relatively ambivalent about the current lottery system because I can't think of a better alternative.

Oh I can think of better alternatives for sure. I don't like any system that promotes an all out tank. If finishing last gave you say an 80 percent chance of getting the first that would promote tanking for sure. In the end crap teams need to be able to get a far better chance at getting the better players. The percentages aren't set that way at the moment. Hence Philly and Dallas picking ahead of the worst team in decades in the Avs. That should not happen. It's broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rekker said:

Oh I can think of better alternatives for sure. I don't like any system that promotes an all out tank. If finishing last gave you say an 80 percent chance of getting the first that would promote tanking for sure. In the end crap teams need to be able to get a far better chance at getting the better players. The percentages aren't set that way at the moment. Hence Philly and Dallas picking ahead of the worst team in decades in the Avs. That should not happen. It's broken.

Redo the percentages to what you think is fair and post it here.  Here's last year's draft...

 

Screen-Shot-2017-04-13-at-11.09.11-AM-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.