Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

tyhee

Members
  • Posts

    1,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tyhee

  1. The trade for Sharp was, of course a good one. In any kind of deal, some will work our, some won't. To say whether a kind of transaction is a good one or not requires looking at a random sample of a larger number of deals. One deal working for the Chicago Black Hawks over 13 years ago tells us it is possible for such a deal to work out but says nothing, pro or con, about whether that kind of deal made sense for the Canucks over the past 5 seasons.
  2. It would be useful if you were to tell him what you saw that makes you disagree with him rather than just throw an insult and not add anything to why DiPietro did or didn't look good.
  3. Because of the agreement between the NHL and Canadian Major Junior Leagues Di Pietro isn't eligible for the AHL until 2019-2020. He either plays in the NHL or the OHL this coming season. I think we can assume it won't be the NHL, so DiPietro will be spending another season playing junior-which makes his signing irrelevant to where Demko plays this coming season. The original plan was for Demko to play three seasons in the AHL (with part of the 3rd season probably getting some NHL games in.) If they stick to that plan then Di Pietro will be replacing Demko on the Comets for 2019-20. If they don't and promote Demko for this coming season it won't be affected by DiPietro, who will almost certainly join the Comets for 2019-20.
  4. 1. No, it isn't allowed in his contract, though it will be next season. 2. Yes he'd need to go through waivers, and nobody would put in a claim to acquire that contract.
  5. Feeling old can be a terrible thing, so to make you feel younger ... When I entered UBC tuition for 1st year students in either Arts or Sciences was $428, of which B.C. government scholarships would cover up to 3/4 based on the results of the government scholarship exams (and then those would continue for future years depending on marks.) When I entered law school at UBC tuition for that faculty was, iirc, $540.
  6. 14:36, according to https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/v/virtaja01/gamelog/2018 His last four games have included 3 of his highest 4 games so far this season in time on ice, the lowest of the three being 12:27 against the Islanders. The opne low toi game of his last 4 was Nov 30 against the Predators. His increase in time on ice happens to coincide with Dorsett and Sutter being out and Virtanen being placed on a line with Granlund and Gaunce. I wonder if his development might have been helped getting some special teams time which would have been more likely to have happened in Utica. It's hard to see that happening, though, as he seems to have earned his spot with the Canucks.
  7. As you say he started off hot. He then got injured in a game on October 21, didn't play at all until November 4 and then only 1 game. Then he sat again until Nov 19 and he's been a regular again since then. He hasn't appeared in the minors this season. His scoring has fallen off. He scored 2 points in each of his second and third games this season. He last had goals in consecutive games Nov 25 and 27 but has no points in 4 games since then. His total for the season so far is 4 goals and 3 assists for 7 points in 16 games.
  8. Regardless of who the coach is it seems at least possible that Jake might be a better future player with more time to figure out the game at the AHL level to a greater extent before progressing to the NHL again. If he is ready by the time training camp rolls around that would be great but there's really nothing to indicate he's there right now. Obviously he'll be given another shot, but his development needn't be rushed.
  9. Time for a confession. There have been a lot of people criticizing the Canucks for selecting Juolevi over Tkachuk. The player I had in 5th spot, not being a scout so going off scouting reports and the little bit gleaned from videos, was Sergachev, not Tkachuk. Of course, again not being a scout, I'm quite happy to say I didn't have enough knowledge to really have strong feelings about it. They're likely underdogs against the Otters, but Go Knights!
  10. On the 2016-17 Canucks, at even strength he's the highest scoring LW while playing regularly on a line with the team's top scorer. It could be reasonably argued that he's already a Canuck 1st liner. Of course, with the Canucks level this season that doesn't mean he'd generally be considered a 1st liner elsewhere, but I do consider the Horvat-Baertschi line (with its rotating cast of right wingers) the Canucks 1st line these days and think the matchups they're getting from other teams' coaches supports that.
  11. Many people on this forum aren't fond of many numbers, but I've always been interested in them and every game go through the box score and go to hockeystats.ca for game stats. I suggest those who don't like stats not bother reading this post-it will be dry and boring to those who +don't like stats and I'm going to just put some numbers out there without trying to come to a conclusion about his play. With the season just 1/4 over, it's probably too soon to be assigning much meaning to any stats. The sample size is still small. The upshot of what is below is that Bo's "possession" numbers and +/-, poor in previous seasons, are considerably better than past seasons, as is his scoring and +/-. In the previous two seasons despite how impressive some of what Horvat was doing was, he had some dismal stats. They started out this season being bad as well, but after seeing quite a few games where his game stats were good, I wondered if he'd gotten his head above water for essentially the first time in his NHL career. So, here we go, with the 2016-17 season just over 1/4 done. The stats below come from stats.hockeyanalysis.com this morning, except for +/- which is from hockey-reference.com. Fenwick: I like to look at FF%RelTM, to take blocked shots and teammates into account. 2014-15 season: -3.7%, 15th among 16 Canuck forwards ahead of only Derek Dorsett 2015-16 season: -2.7%, tied 15th among 19 Canuck forwards, tied with Kenins and ahead of only Prust, Grenier and Granlund 2016-17 season: -+ 2.0%, 6th among 15 Canuck fowards. This was really what I was wondering about. So far this season, with the sample size admittedly still quite small, Bo has above average Fenwick (unblocked shot attempt numbers.) Although one can't tell from what I've posted, those numbers have been improving lately-he's had a run of games in which his shot attempt numbers have been pretty good. His Corsi numbers aren't as good as his Fenwick numbers this season and his Corsi numbers aren't (yet) above average (for the season to date he's presently at -0.3% CF%RelTM at 5 on 5, 9th among 15 Canuck forwards with 50+ minutes at even strength) but there is a dramatic improvement in these stats compared with his stats over the last two seasons. Again, his Corsi numbers are climbing as the season progresses. Zone starts on faceoffs aren't actually all that far off average, which will surprise some. He's started 90 (30.6%) of his faceoff shifts in the offensive zone, 99 (33.7%) in the defensive zone and 105 (35.7%) in the neutral zone. I'd anticipated there would be a larger discrepancy between offensive and defensive starts. Scoring: using 5 on 5 pts per 60 minutes, something he's always been better at than Corsi or Fenwick stats: 2014-15 season 1.69 pts per 60 min, 10th among 16 Canuck forwards with 50+ minutes played at even strength 2015-16 season 1.43 pp60, 5th among 19 Canuck forwards with 50+ minutes played at even strength 2016-17 season 2.11 pp60, tied with Baertschi for 1st among Canuck forwards (same qualification criteria-also used for Fenwick below) Bo's scoring this season has been widely commented on so this result wasn't a surprise. Finally, last and certainly least, the unreliable +/-: 2014-15 season -8 tied with Sbisa for worst on the team 2015-16 season -30 tied with Vrbata for worst on the team and ahead of only 1 NHL skater (tied 896/897 of 898 NHL skaters) 2016-17 season -1 tied 10/14 among 28 players who have skated for the Canucks this season. He isn't above zero, but on the Canucks, that -1 is better than average and considerably better than his previous numbers.
  12. There's no waiver or contractual issue at play-at least any more. I think the Canucks got caught somewhat. In a less horrible world, they'd have sent Jake down at the beginning of the season. The problem was: -Virtanen got hurt in the first preseason game and didn't get much time to show what he could or couldn't do, so they were in part guessing based on how he played last season-and for in February and March he was playing well enough to help the team. Also ... -Etem crapped the bed in the preseason. It would have been nice to have Etem as the pressbox forward and send Jake down to get playing time and instruction in Utica, but the Canucks didn't do that. Two possible reasons were that they thought Jake would be better and not need to go to Utica, or that Etem was so bad they didn't think they could justify keeping him on the team. There are probably some other possibilities. The next problem is that the Canucks really have very poor forward depth in Utica right now. There just aren't very good options. Grenier and Zalewski would probably have been the least bad options and I don't think the Canucks have confidence that either of them can play at the NHL level. The loss of Etem is very unlikely to have any effect on the Canucks of future years, but it has affected their depth this season. With only one injury (Rodin) they're already short of good options. In hindsight, with Virtanen showing poorly thus far this season, the Canucks probably wish they'd sent him to Utica and kept Etem (or Ruutu) as the 13th forward. I thought at the time that is what they would do, but there was certainly reason to hope Virtanen would look less ready than he has and the combination of seeing little of Virtanen and Etem being poor in the preseason made it harder for the brass to know what would be best. If things don't change soon the Canucks may need to consider signing one of the players that weren't kept around after professional tryouts, Ruutu or someone that had a pto with another team. I wonder, as some have already expressed in this thread, whether the Canucks are doing Virtanen lasting harm keeping in Vancouver right now.
  13. No. Tryamkin is still on his entry level contract and all entry level contracts are required to be 2-way. Even McDavid would make $70K per year playing in the AHL.
  14. If he were otherwise eligible for a conditioning loan and consented to the assignment, then yes. Section 13.8 of the CBA reads: 13.8 Conditioning Loan. Unless a Player consents, he shall not be Loaned on a Conditioning Loan to a minor league club. Such Conditioning Loan shall not extend for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days. The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate the circumstances under which a Player is Loaned on a Conditioning Loan. If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club, as he deems appropriate. The Player shall continue, during the period of such Conditioning Loan, to receive the same Paragraph 1 NHL Salary, and be entitled to the same benefits, that he would have received had he continued to play with the Club. ___ Obviously if he were consenting to the limited conditioning loan, he wouldn't be exercising his right to return to Europe.
  15. Players with no move clauses can't be exposed, which means the Canucks are required to protect Eriksson, as well as the twins.
  16. tyhee

    Brendan Gaunce | C/LW

    Yes, the definition for Calder Trophy and All-Rookie team being someone who has not played 25 games in any NHL season, nor 6 or more games in any major professional league in two separate seasons.
  17. Biega hasn't been exempt from waivers for a long while now. Under s. 13.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a player who signs his entry level contract in his 22 year old year is exempt from waivers for 3 seasons or 70 NHL games. Biega signed at the age of 22 year in 2010. His waiver exemption expired at the end of the 2012-13 season.
  18. I agree with most of this, though there are a couple of things that argue in favour of Miller being traded at the deadline. It should be remembered though that cost is much less of a factor at the trade deadline because there is so little time left in the rest of the regular season. A team at that time wouldn't need as much cap space to take on Miller's salary as would be the case earlier in the season. Further, with Miller's contract expiring, the team wouldn't be taking on much of an obligation. If the scenario you suggest with a team having an injured goalie comes up, then the team could acquire Miller then not sign him to an extension. There would be no financial obligation to the team past the end of the regular season. There are also, as you and others have pointed out, a number of reasons that argue against a Miller deadline trade.
  19. Sanguinetti spent one season in the Canucks' system and played zero NHL games while CDC at the time often questioned why he wasn't getting a chance in the NHL. Granlund has so far spent less than half a season in the Canucks' system, all in the NHL. Could you explain the comparison between Bo-Sang and Granlund? Thanks.
  20. Am I missing something? I don't see how Grenier was subject to the NHL-CHL agreement when he went to Europe-he was 21. He was drafted as a 20 year old (by CBA definition, though he was a couple of months short of 20 at the time) so the agreement would never have applied to him. Jensen was one of the ones I was aware of from 2012-13, which is the only year I'm aware of it having happened.
  21. I'm curious. Are there examples of this kind of loan (player otherwise caught by NHL-CHL agreement) to Europe in a season in which the NHL wasn't closed (at least at the beginning of the season) due to a labour dispute? There were a couple in 2012-13 but I'm not aware of others. Thx.
  22. The suggestion that the Canucks can sign Juolevi and then assign him to Europe appears to me to be mistaken. Imo it can't happen. The application of the NHL-CHL rule doesn't depend on nationality of the player. It is strictly what team the player was drafted from. See for example http://prospectsannex.blogspot.ca/2010/04/nhlchl-agreement-why-juniors-have-to-be.html in which it says, in part: "The NHL/CHL agreement states that a player with junior eligibility signed by an NHL team must be returned to his junior team if he's not playing in the NHL. ...Players who are not drafted from the CHL, like NCAA and European players, aren't held to these rules. Players who were drafted out of Europe and then play in the CHL later, can play in the minors under the age of 20. European players drafted out of the CHL are held to it. Nationality is not part of the equation -- it's where you were drafted from (which league developed you)." Also see http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/chl-no-intentions-changing-underage-rules-ahl-exemptions/ where it says "The NHL and CHL have an agreement in place that stipulates if a player drafted from one of the three leagues that make up the CHL doesn’t join his NHL club at the beginning of a season, that he must return to the major junior team he was selected from." The way the rule applies to European players is well explained at http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2012/8/1/3213217/bruins-nhl-chl-ahl-agreement-CBA-talks-2012, with examples. There it says: " European players further complicate The Agreement. If European players are drafted in the CHL draft before they're drafted by an NHL club, this rule applies to them. However, if they're drafted as a member of a European squad, and choose post-NHL-draft to play for a CHL team, they can, in fact, report to the NHL team's minor squads before the age limit kicks in. To explain this in detail, let's look at three European players who were drafted in 2006: Jiri Tlusty, Artem Anisimov, and Ivan Vishnevskiy. Based on the agreement, the age cutoff for the AHL for 18-year-old players drafted in 2006 would be 20 years old by December 30, 2008. Artem Anisimov is the simplest of these three cases. He was drafted by the New York Rangers out of the Yaroslavl Locomotiv of the KHL, and was assigned to the Hartford Wolf Pack at the age of 19 for the 2007-2008 season. He turned 20 on May 24, 2008. No CHL involvement means no age restriction. Easy enough. Ivan Vishnevskiy is the opposite case. He was the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies' (QMJHL) second pick in the CHL import draft in 2005, before being drafted by the Dallas Stars out of R-N in 2006. Since he was drafted from a CHL team, the same rules apply to Vishnevskiy as any other player drafted from a CHL team: 20 years old or 4 years of play. Vishnevskiy played for Rouyn-Noranda for three seasons, turned 20 during the 2007-2008 season, and reported to the Peoria Rivermen of the AHL to start the 2008-2009 season. Jiri Tlusty exemplifies the strange hybrid case of a European player who played for the CHL but was drafted from Europe. He was drafted tenth overall in 2006 from HC Kladno of the Czech Extraliga, then signed with the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds of the OHL. After one season, he split the season between the Marlies of the AHL and the NHL's Maple Leafs as a 19-year-old. Since he was drafted by the Maple Leafs from Europe, he was eligible for minor league play. David Krejci could have been in a similar situation; he was also drafted from HC Kladno in the same draft before playing for the Gatineau Olympiques of the QMJHL the following season; he, however, opted to spend two years in juniors before playing for the AHL P-Bruins at the age of 20. These rules don't just apply to Europeans, as was the case with the Blackhawks' Jeremy Morin. He was drafted out of the USA's National Development program before signing with the Kitchener Rangers in 2009-2010. After some controversy, it appears he will report to Rockford of the AHL to begin the 2010-2011 season if he does not make the Blackhawks' NHL squad." Juolevi was drafted from the London Knights, not from Europe. See the draft listing at http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2016e.html (or anywhere else, for that matter.) Every listing shows him as being drafted from the Knights of the OHL. I know there was some early (incorrect) speculation that Juolevi had only been loaned to the Knights by his Finnish team, but elitepropsects.com show him as having been transferred (not loaned-see http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=196391which says: "Career transactions - 2015-07-17 • Transferred from Jokerit U20 to the London Knights (OHL)" I've also seen numerous sources saying Thomas Drance reported Trevor Linden told him that Juolevi would be subject to the NHL-CHL agreement. One of them is at https://www.reddit.com/r/canucks/comments/4pzfg1/thomas_drance_linden_says_juolevi_wasnt_on_loan/?st=iqu4p85t&sh=b8cb6fb2. Juolevi is in the same position as Vishnevskiy was. He can't be loaned by the Canucks to anybody but the Knights (unless the Knights trade his CHL rights.) No AHL, no ECHL, and no return to Europe-if he signs with the Canucks this summer. The only way he can get back to Europe for next season is to sign there directly. I've seen speculation that Juolevi's agent is pushing for him to play in Europe this coming season. That can't happen if Juolevi signs with the Canucks first. I don't know if that's a part of the reason Juolevi hasn't yet signed a Canucks' contract.
  23. If I can tell correctly this was written about Philip Larsen. If it is about Larsen, it's wrong, at least about Edmonton not qualifying him. If Edmonton didn't qualify him, they'd have lost his rights and wouldn't have had anything to trade to the Canucks for that conditional draft pick the Canucks gave the Oilers for his rights. Edmonton DID qualify him. He chose not to sign with them and signed to play in the KHL. A news release announcing the qualifying offer at the time is still online at http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=724663. Other news reports from later times that refer to the Oilers having made the qualifying offer can be seen at http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/cult-of-hockey-should-the-oilers-bring-back-philip-larsen "A couple of years back, the Edmonton Oilers sent qualifying offers to a pair of restricted free agents that they knew would spend the next year in Europe. One of those players was defenceman Philip Larsen ..." A news article from the time of the Oilers-Canucks Larsen trade at http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/cult-of-hockey-oilers-canucks-both-make-decent-bets-with-philip-larsen-trade says "This is a trade that goes back to 2014, when then-Oilers general manager Craig MacTavish gave the KHL-bound Larsen a qualifying offer, thereby allowing Edmonton to retain his rights. It didn’t cost Edmonton anything, and Larsen was just 24 years old at the time so there was a realistic chance that he would continue to improve and perhaps eventually return to the NHL. "
  24. I haven't, at least on this forum, complained about the term yet. Nevertheless I guess if I am ever going to complain about it in a few years, it would be wrong not to say so now. I'm sorry to be negative when most on here are excited about the improvement he'll bring to the Canucks over the next couple of years. I like Eriksson as a player. He's a good fit for the twins (though we had a good fit for the twins) and should also be able to play effectively thoughout the lineup. He'll help in team scoring this season. From the little about his character that I've read he should be good in the locker room. Further, those that believe the Canucks were within one good piece of having an excellent chance (not just a chance but an excellent chance) to win the Stanley Cup will understandably love this contract. Many on here don't believe in considering the future. I do. I believe a team does best by maximizing total value over the long term. Getting an asset without trading for it or using a draft pick is good. Otoh, giving a long-term contract for sizeable moneyand a no-move clause, while making the contract effectively buyout-proof because much of the money is paid in signing bonuses instead of salary, to a player already past the usual best age for scorers who has had numerous concussions and who just had, in his contract year, his best season by far of the past four carries a big risk. If it doesn't work out and his ability declines seriously a couple of years before the contract expires, it is a contract the Canucks will have a tough time getting rid of and it will be cap space that they could have used on a player to help them at that time. I think the Canucks chances of competing for a championship in the next couple of seasons are poor, but that if they get some good management decisions and some good luck they could be competitive for a championship in a few seasons. For that reason I consider the future more important than the present. IN a few years Eriksson's contract may be anything from a great benefit to a needless use of $6 million per season in cap space that could better be used on a player who at that time will be in his prime. So, I like the player and will look forward to cheering him on this season-but I don't care for his contract from the team's point of view.
  25. I've wondered, a lot, why it is people are anxious to move Hansen down in the lineup and get a new winger for the Sedins. This is nothing against Eriksson. He's undoubtedly a fine player and would do a good job with the twins. But he's a better scorer than Hansen. If the Canucks want balance in the lineup the way Ossi says, they get more of it with Eriksson on a different line than they do with Hansen. Look at Hansen's goal totals from earlier seasons when Burrows was the right winger with the Sedins. I see no reason to expect his scoring without the twins is going to take some quantum leap. There may be reason to play Eriksson with the twins, but spreading the scoring among the various lines doesn't look to be one of those reasons to me. As for the signing, well, this is nothing against Eriksson (again, a fine player) nor even against Benning, whose back is probably against hte wall, but I think the term is way too long for a 31 year old (in a few days), especially one with past concussion issues. No, the Canucks wouldn't have gotten him without signing him for that term. I think it's the wrong direction to go. Eriksson is now a Canuck and one who should be popular so long as his play doesn't decline. I look at age-related decline around the league and in the Canucks (note how much complaining there has been on this forum about the play of Bieksa, Higgins, Burrows, Hamhuis and even Edler as they've left their late 20's) and on a general basis-again, nothing against Eriksson in particular-don't like long term contracts for players in their twenties. On the one hand Eriksson will likely be an excellent fit for the 2016-17 Canucks. On the other hand, we have to hope that he ages better than the average player.
×
×
  • Create New...