Noseforthenet
-
Posts
1,993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Noseforthenet
-
-
He's going to Phoenix July 1st. Book it. This whole situation smells like Phoenix. With most of the money paid and the $6 mil cap hit, he'll be paid like an affordable middle 6 forward. We could even get a mid round pick out of the deal. Anyone believe Phoenix is gonna get in on free agency in a hard core way? Probably not. That's not how they operate.
-
30 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:
Lol no player with a decent name will ever sign with the Canucks if this is the path they go. That's like telling the world we dont honor contracts if you suck and not living up to your contract we will bury you in the minor to force you to retire lol the berglund situation was different as he was traded to buffalo. Sure u save Ericsson's cap but all free agent will think twice before coming to Vancouver or all of them would be demanding a nmc to prevent the Canucks from Bush league move to get out of contracts
How'd that work out for the NYR and Wade Redden?
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, JamesBlondage said:
Sorry what I was trying to say was Torts is an ass...he was a good coach at times (not necessarily in Vancouver) but giving Lack the start in the outdoor game was simply a dick move...
Yeah, you know...I seem to remember his after season presser and how he was basically saying that people were holding onto 2011 and that they should try to forget about it. It's over. If you read into that, I think that was a bit of a shot at Kesler and the old core in the room. Basically they had to move on from it. In other words, it's pretty hard to coach a room when you don't have 100% buy in from your core.
-
We are overflowing on forwards right now. 15 NHL guys (including Eriksson). I still think they're looking for a trade match. Some forwards for some defense. Right now, we're looking at:
Edler-Tanev
?-Stetcher
?-?
Biega
Assuming Hughes will likely make it, we still gotta get 2. Maybe 3 dmen if we're gonna carry 8. I don't suppose we're gonna carry 2 Rookies on defense to start this season. With 17 mil and change worth of cap space, maybe we aren't gonna sign Tyler Myers after all if he's gonna eat up almost half of it.
-
19 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:
How good was Gretzky in his?
There's a difference between being coach and being GM in this regard. Former all star hockey players make good GMs because they reckognize the talent they need. They don't make good coaches because they already have the God given talent and don't understand why others don't play like they do. Whereas the guys who have had to grind it out between leagues know what it's like to work for every ounce of what they have, know how they were motivated and use that to motivate others. Star players grind it out too, but it's definitely a different situation for both.
-
9 minutes ago, oldnews said:
if you doubt it - google it yourself.
Well Brock Boeser has played in 9 games in his first season and then 2 seasons after that yet he is RFA. So it seems I was right about the years thing. Whether that also pertains to expansion or not is a different story.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, oldnews said:
No. 5 games does not qualify - he would have had to play 10.
Well that's good. I read alot of barking back and forth. You sure? I know the 9 games rule is for a rookie in the CHL, but when we had both Boeser and Corrado, they both played 6 games and it ate a year of their ELCs.
-
3 hours ago, coastal.view said:
yeah you sure got me
zing
here's a little information for you about the expansion rules (copied and pasted from nhl.com):
(the bolded area relates directly to hughes and byram)
Seattle must choose a minimum of 20 players under contract for the 2021-22 regular season and those with an aggregate Expansion Draft value that is between 60-100 percent of the prior season's upper limit for the salary cap. Seattle cannot buy out players chosen in the Expansion Draft earlier than the summer following its first season.
Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie, under the following conditions.
* All players with no movement clauses at the time of the draft, and who decline to waive those clauses, must be protected and will be counted toward their team's applicable protection limits.
* All first- and second-year NHL players, and all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward protection limits.
In addition, all NHL teams must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the draft:
* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.
* Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.
* One goalie who is under contract in 2021-22 or will be a restricted free agent at the end of his current contract immediately prior to 2021-22. If a team elects to make a restricted free agent goalie available to meet this requirement, that goalie must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the team's protected list.
* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a team's player exposure requirements unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection.
Okay so then explain it to me. After finishing their second years, respectively, does that count as them being 3rd year players once the season is over. Also, since Quinn Hughes played last year. I think I was 5 games, but I don't fully recall, would the year before expansion be counted as his 3rd? I think anything past 5 games counts on his contract as another season, which makes 3.
Not that it matters anyways. Like I said, you proved my point. And say we did acquire Seabrook and were able to talk thru a proper and fair trade which worked for both sides, I can't imagine it would be hard to get him to waive it for Seattle. It's not like they'd pick him anyways, so it would be irrelevant. That, plus the fact that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if there wasn't a fair salary/contract length trade off. I mean, we've got some real winners on defense right now *rolls eyes*. Just wait til Myers gets 8×7 from Benning.
-
4 minutes ago, oldnews said:
nor do we know how the pick will turn out in 3 or 4 years.
hence the nature of risk when you make a trade.
all you can do is calculate those risks vs each other to the best of your ability - you cannot eliminate risk in the process
I think they calculated the cost/beneift/risk very well - that is all I can ask. I can't expect them to control countless uncontrollable variables into the future.
Which is exactly why you do interviews. You need to know how determined and focused these kids are. I mean, when Griffin Reinhart was drafted, NYI obviously didn't do their due diligence in getting the right idea about the kid. You're right though. That's the nature of trading. Though I will say this...I don't believe there would be an issue getting Seabrook to waive for Seattle. I mean, it's hard enough for Chicago to get rid of his contract. He waives, they still aren't picking him. Worst case scenario, he's close to home anyways.
-
5 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:
Yes, Benning isn't thorough and doesn't dig into things, he just hangs up. But you would have got a deal done, for sure.
...and this is why you AREN'T a GM.
Pure speculation and wishful thinking. None of us have any idea.
I didn't know about the buy out bit. Probably a good idea to read the whole thread to contribute properly to the discussion...but any way, yeah trade discussions happen ALL. THE. TIME.
Very few things come to fruition.
That's why we talk about such things.
We aren't sure of Chicago's interests here. If it's purely to dump Seabrook to go get Panarin, then yeah, you tell them to choke on it. If you can actually talk about something more palatable for both sides, then something could have happened. I have a couple things in mind. Mostly involving sending Sutter the other way, since Benning is likely looking at moving him this summer anyways, in favour of Gaudette.
-
17 minutes ago, oldnews said:
I said the relevent material - not just 'age'
And I don't know what you're talking about with this 4-4-2 stuff.
I'm pretty sure the expansion rules remain 7-3-1 or 8-1.
Anyhow that is irrelevent - the point was the value that Chicago would have to give up to rid themselves of both that cap and term (whether you buy it out or not) and at the same time, rid themselves of that NMC which in the absence of moving him, will cost them an expansion protection spot. They have very little leverage to get that done, let alone in a tightening cap context, period.
Sorry. 8 players and one goalie, so in the Nucks case it would be 4 forwards, 4 D, and 1 goalie. Or maybe even 5 D and 3 forwards because we don't know how JT Miller is going to work out.
-
3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:
hughes
byram
woulld need no protecting in a seattle expansion draft
you do not know basic things about the details of how expansion works
i suspect you understand salary cap issues equally well
why not spend a bit of time reading posts and figure out these things
rather then just making noise on here with your posting
You assume too much and I do know how the salary cap works, thank you. You basically just proved my point even more with the comment above, so...THANK YOU!!!!!
-
4 minutes ago, Tystick said:
The problem is we would have had a hard time signing Boeser, Pettersson, and wouldn't have a chance at signing Panarin.
The fans would be at JB's throat. Not a good look.
So a quarter of our capspace locked into aging vets. Just for Byram? Meh.
Podkolzin was a good pick, I'm happy.
You lost me at Panarin, lmfao! If you go down the rabbit hole and see what Chicago would take back to get the albatross contract out, I believe there would have been a deal to be made. And I'm not talking Loui Erkisson either.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, oldnews said:
You could have just said age.... Yeah, that cap hit wouldn't be worth it. If expansion is the problem, then why not go the 4-4-2 route instead, hypothetically. If say this did happen, we'd be protecting Hughes, Byram, Juolevi, Seabrook. Then Petey, Bo, Boeser, and I'm drawing a blank. I guess the 4th would likely be JT Miller. The rest of them I'd not lose sleep over. It doesn't seem that bad does it? Everyone else on the team is kind of swimming in mediocrity.
Also, this is assuming Eriksson is likely not playing another game in blue and green.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, oldnews said:
Forgeting/ignoring the truth or myth of the rumour - that's just way too much dump to take to move up 5 spots.
And - Seabrook owns a NMC for the next three years - meaning he's going to cost them in the expansion draft.
Seabrook isn't bad in the present - if that were a year or two, you could placehold him - but the last 3 years of that deal are disastrous.
Even if they took LE back in a deal, that trade-up still would not suffice imo. Without a counter cap-dump, I think even the suggestion is audacious.
Chicago made their bed - they got their Cups - I hope they remain on the hook.
7 spots. And why couldn't Seabs be bought out at expansion time?
-
49 minutes ago, Jaku said:
What worries me about this is if there wasn't a discussion, how much digging is Benning really doing, how far along in trade discussions is he really getting, and if there was a discussion after all, how creative is Benning getting with his trade proposals? I would have come back with something within the right ballpark.
It's not like Seabs is THAT bad at the moment. Maybe in 2 or 3 years he just gets bought out? He has experience winning. I see him as an asset. Even if he ends up being a bottom pairing D-man.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, timberz21 said:
Taking Seabrook outright wasn't worth it. However, what about this? Would have been interesting.
Eriksson
10th
vs
Seabrook
3rd
I don't think they would have done that, however...would it have worked if they did it for Sutter?
-
17 minutes ago, CanuckGAME said:
He got more points playing on the rangers
He was buried on the deep TB lineup and produced less. Miller was not a product of the TB system..
I am well aware of that. My issue is whether or not we just got a Kris Versteeg, Chris Higgins, Mason Raymond, or Alex Burrows. I mean, I wanna see the optics of it. Right now, he looks like a blender guy. Not a 1st or second line fixture. We already have those guys. I mean, is there much difference between what he can do and what Tanner Pearson can already do? If we just gave up a 1st, I want a fixture guy. Not a blender guy. I think that's a fair ask, IMO.
-
1
-
-
Does anyone have the stats on how many points JT Miller got on the powerplay with Kuch and Stamkos over the past couple seasons?
-
From how the 1st round turned out, I think this was Detroit looking to move down to 10th. I think Burkie was right on the money. They saw something in that one German Dman and they wanted more assets and JB was like. "IDC. 6th is not worth THAT much to me."
-
1
-
-
So...assuming this position is for team President...who would you all rather have...? Chiarelli or Mike Gillis? The man who jumps at making moves vs the man who takes to long to do anything?!
-
13 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:
The expansion draft occurs at the end of his 2 year contract (2021). As a UFA he will be exempt from the exp. draft.
It looks like I was mistaken. I thought it was end of this season. This must have been the exact term Eddie wanted then. Not whatever was reported. Whatever it takes to not be selected I guess.
-
1
-
-
This was not Edler folding for 2. This was the absolute best of a non ideal situation for him. He wasn't getting expansion protection anywhere, so what happens? He signs a 2 year deal. Plays one year here and then Seattle IF they pick him. Plus if they pick him, they can't trade him anywhere unless he waives. His family doesn't have to move and then after the year away, BOOM, re-signs a new deal with Vancouver.
-
Guys on Instagram seem to be trolling Jake Virtanen, saying that he was included in trade with Phili for Shane Gosistbehere. Some are even welcoming him to Phili already
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Posted
I stand corrected. I didn't realize how much they have spent on their defense. That's waaaay too much. We should relieve them a little bit...Hjalmarson, maybe? There's probably a trade Arizona has in the works. They didn't score enough last season. Not saying Eriksson helps that, but it's easy to see they aren't going to remain at the status quo.