-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by tyhee
-
nmnd
-
I expect you're right about that. Otoh, even though they may be more stingy than others about doing so, they still draft and sign prospects. In April, 2015 they signed 2014 draft picks Ryan MacInnis and Christian Dvorak to entry level contracts and a little over a month later, in late May, 2015 just before losing the rights to Laplante by not signing him the Coyotes signed undrafted free agent Matthias Plachta. Then on July 1 they signed undrafted free agent Dakota Mermis to a 3 year entry level contract.
-
It was a year ago that the Coyotes lost their rights to Laplante by not having signed him. Draft + 1 season 2013-14 63 games in junior 23 g 19 ast 42 pts -9 (+ 6 scoreless AHL games, presumably at the end of the season after his junior team was finished) Draft + 2 season 2014-15 50 games in junior 22 g 20 ast 42 pts -1 At the end of his Draft + 2 season he was not signed by the Coyotes so was eligible for the draft again and when not drafted was an UFA but didn't get drafted and didn't get signed. This is going to be an unpopular comment on here, but I'd guess the Coyotes didn't sign him because they didn't think he'd progressed enough since being drafted to be worth a contract. They had two years and would have had a few spots available last offseason. Pretty clearly, given the bonuses and the salary amounts, Benning currently considers him a very worthwhile signing.
-
Unless I'm missing something, neither Brisebois nor Olsen is eligible for the AHL next season. Both were drafted from Major Junior, neither will be 20 years of age and neither will have had 4 seasons in Major Junior. It seems to me the NHL's agreement with the CHL will require the Canucks to return them to junior, assuming they don't make the Canucks. I haven't seen the Canucks under JB getting their prospects overripe. So far we've seen Horvat, Virtanen, McCann go straight to the NHL from junior and Hutton go straight to the NHL from university. Those that weren't with the Canucks weren't in the minors to get them overripe-they simply weren't yet considered good enough to beat others out to play for the Canucks. Instead of getting prospects overripe JB has talked about bringing them to the NHL and accelerating their development-and that's what he's done.
-
There could be a benefit in the future to the Canucks having their own ECHL team, but I don't think that the prospect pool is so deep as to require it for a while. Right now the Canucks have very little in the way of prospects actually playing for the Comets and the calibre of prospects on the Comets isn't very high. Their top prospects are imo Gaunce, Grenier, Kenins and Zelewski at forward and Pedan and Subban on defence. Of those I'd guess Gaunce and Pedan are likely to stick with the Canucks next season (and Pedan isn't a sure thing) and the Canucks may lose some of the others. Further down the list would be Cassels, Friesen, Labate and Archibald at forward and Sautner and the newly signed Carl Neill on defence. Imo any one of those is a bit of a longshot at this stage, with Cassels, Sautner and Neill still young enough that it would be only a mild surprise if one of them eventually make the NHL. The Comets have played at times this year with nine players on professional tryout contracts signed from the ECHL. I don't think the Canucks' prospect depth at this time is such that having its own ECHL team would make much diffference. Obviously, that can change fairly quickly. One way that could change would be if some of the numerous players who are currently marginal NHL'ers play in Utica next season. Another would be some AHL signings or signings of players to play in the AHL. A third way that could change is if the Canucks decide they have enough marginal players in their early-middle twenties (say 22-25) and start to make the opposite of the kind of trade that they've used to acquire players such as Pedan, Etem and Granlund, instead moving some of their depth players for younger prospects who will still be waiver exempt for at least another season. So yes, the Canucks could be well served owning an ECHL team or having an ECHL affiliate, but imo there's no rush to do it unless some changes are made to considerably boost the depth on the Comets.
-
But if Brandon T had signed with the Canucks, he'd have been beaten out for a forward position by Pedan so he'd be tried on D.
-
Other players drafted have similar rights. If Tryamkin didn't sign with the Canucks this spring, he'd have become an UFA at the end of the summer. If a Canadian junior player doesn't sign within two years of being drafted, he re-enters the draft. If he's too old for the draft, he becomes an UFA. So any Canadian junior could, if he wanted, not sign for four years (through two drafts) and become an UFA. That's quite a leap. I would have thought if he decides not to sign with the Canucks, it says he doesn't want to play for the Canucks. It has nothing to do with the city, the colours or the logo. It could mean he sees a better chance for himself elsewhere. It could mean he doesn't see himself as a fit for the Canucks management or coaching. It could mean he thinks his chances of enjoying a winning environment while developing are better elsewhere. It could mean he'd prefer a city where hockey isn't what sports fans dwell on and where he wouldn't face the same media pressure. It could mean ... any number of things which don't insult the city and have nothing to do with colours or logos. If he doesn't sign here (I'm guessing he eventually will) we may never know his reasons, and I see no reason to take offence and take a business decision as a personal insult.
-
A factor he may consider is what the chances are of winning the Frozen Four in 2017 if he stays in school. Between that and getting his degree instead of going back for it later, I can see Demko being sorely tempted to put off signing until next spring. He's a good enough prospect that next spring he'd probably be able to get the Canucks to sign him right after his season is over and burn an elc year immediately. That would leave his income loss being his lost AHL income for most of the 2016-17 season, partly offset by the value of the 4th year of his scholarship. Against that is the advantage of starting his professional career and getting professional coaching and opposition sooner. If he were to sign this year there is the possibility (somewhat against the odds, but possible) that if he develops quickly enough in the AHL this coming season there could be an NHL job available for him the following season. Even if he intends to sign with the Canucks and the only question is when, I don't think the decision whether to sign now as opposed to next spring is totally clearcut.
-
Since he isn't and has never been a member of the class of 2018, I don't see how it could be considered "his college class." Not only that, but if the drafters of the CBA intended that the class of 2018 be his college class, they could have made it very clear by saying "August 15 of the calendar year in which he turns 22 years of age" instead of "August 15 following the graduation of his college class" (with a similar change where "his college class" appears earlier in the paragraph.) If the determining factor is age, there is no reason to refer to his college class at all. To me there's no doubt whatsoever that it's intended to be his actual class, both because relating it to age is contrary to the meaning of the actual words "his college class" and the fact that it would have been easy to make it clear if the end of the rights period were to be determined by age.
-
The Canucks have his rights through August 15 of the year of graduation of his college class. In Demko's case, as he started university at a young age and had completed his first year in 2013-14, so his college class will graduate next spring, giving the Canucks his rights until August 15, 2017. The relevant provision of the CBA is 8.6(c)(i) in case anyone wants to look it up-I'm having trouble selecting it to paste/copy.
-
What's good character got to do with his decisions on whether to go back to school and after that whether to sign with the Canucks?
-
Some silly fun with stats having a small sample size ... I think everyone has been selling Tryamkin short and the expectations have been too low. After all, after only 1 NHL game: -Tryamkin leads all Canucks, forward or defence, with 5.19 pts/60 minutes. He has a very large margin over the next two stalwart leading Canuck scorers per 60 min, Taylor Fedun and Mike Zalewski. Extrapolated over 17 games at say 12 min per game, and he rates to finish the season with 18 points, more than a ppg -The Canucks have given up a lot of shots this season and most are below 50% in Shots For %, but Tryamkin against leads the team at 53.3%. -this season the Canucks haven't been a mighty possession team, but Tryamkin leads all Canuck defencemen with a FF% of 52.9. Of course, he is still behind Canucks' FF% leader Mike Zalewski. -he is particularly impressive in CF%-Tryamkin is the only Canuck skater over 50%, with an excellent CF% of 55.6%, well ahead of Hammer, who is 2nd on the team. Of course, some of those stats may decrease slightly once he's on the ice for a defensive zone faceoff, which didn't happen against the Avalanche or once he faces close to average opposition (he's even more sheltered regarding opponents played against than Grenier and Friesen have been). Will he continue those stats, or turn into a bust? To answer a poll in another thread, the next Canuck d-man can be Tryamkin! To return to a semblance of seriousness, it is impressive that with a defensive group as weak as that one was, WD still managed to limit Tryamkin's ice time to 11:33 and to limit his responsibility as much as he did-clearly weaker than average opponents, no defensive zone faceoffs.
-
Agreed. It seems to be almost a certainty that it will be the Canucks' 3rd coming back in the Sutter deal. Assuming the reports that it is the better of the Canucks and Islanders 3rd rd picks are correct, the Canucks would have to make up 19 points on the Islanders with both teams having 17 games left to play in the regular season in order to get the Islanders' pick instead. As for Burrows, right now, with all the youth and injuries, I think we really need him. For better or worse, I expect the Canucks will trade him or buy him out in the offseason, though.
-
He was probably referring to former Canucks head coach Bob McCannon, often confused with current Canucks' player Jared McCammon.
-
My guess (and it is nothing more than that) is that Gaunce would be with the Comets for their 3g/3d this weekend were it not for concern about whether Hank would make it back by tonight and how good the chances are of Hank being healthy enough to stay in the lineup in the near future.
-
1. Perhaps I'm overly swayed by the way his scoring has fallen off since since his first few games and by his very low faceoff %, but I haven't seen enough yet to conclude he's ready to play at the NHL level on a regular basis yet. 2. Backwards steps aren't necessarily bad for development. The easiest example I can think of is Leon Draisaitl. Last season the Oilers decided he wasn't ready after 1/2 season in the NHL and gave him an even larger backwards step, all the way back to juniors. He wouldn't have been eligible for any other step outside the NHL because of the NHL-CHL agreement about junior players being returned to junior. One can never predict what his development would have been if they'd kept him in the NHL, but It would be hard to argue the backwards step hurt him. He was poor in the NHL last season but this season he's 2nd on the Oilers in scoring and 4th among Oilers' forwards in average time on ice. The key isn't whether it is a forwards or backwards step in calibre of opposition, it is whether the NHL is the best level for him to develop into the best player he can become for future editions of the Canucks. It remains to be seen what this summer's training will bring but the speculation that a season in Utica might be good for him seems reasonable enough at this stage. I don't pretend to know what will be best for him next season, but am of the opinion that giving him the Draisaitl treatment would have been better for him this season. Otoh, because the Canuck suffered a number of key injuries shortly before McCann reached a half season on the roster, it isn't surprising that they kept him with the Canucks. Oops-this isn't the Jared McCann talk thread? Ok, to relate to Rodin, if the Canucks sign Rodin it could make sense to keep him in the NHL ahead of McCann even if just as a placeholder if the team feels a season in Utica would be the best place for McCann's development.
-
It isn't quite the same, but on this forum we do have the ability to ignore any user whose content we don't enjoy reading.
-
You're probably right that relations will thaw a little, in that Trudeau is unlikely to be as strident about Putin's actions as Harper was. I doubt that we'll see Russia and Canada being friends in the foreseeable future, though. I happen to have agreed with Harper's position regarding Putin but whether Harper was right to be so stridently opposed to Putin's actions isn't the point-Trudeau is likely to be less adamant in his position and that may alter the relationship between Canada and Russia. It won't be all that much, though. Trudeau will, inevitably, not be a friend of Putin. He will oppose his actions and his positions just as Harper did. He'll just be more diplomatic, probably, in the way he says it. I don't know if that would have much, if any any, effect on the number of Russian hockey players coming to the NHL.
-
Thanks. Your information is much appreciated.
-
Unless there's something I missed on the hfboards thread, the issue was different-it was whether Tryamkin becomes a free agent if unsigned through June 1. I was the one that posted the CBA wording on that issue. Edit: nvmd. I found it and you're right. It's in 13.12(j) of the CBA.
-
Is it really that players who were in the NHL at 3 p.m. on the deadline can't be sent down, or just that they're ineligible for the AHL playoffs? Thanks in advance.
-
Well it's getting old now, but when drafted in the summer of 2014 he was quoted as follows: “The (KHL) money is not an issue,” Tryamkin said with Chibisov translating. “Coming to the NHL is the next step in (my) career. It’s the best league in the world. “I want to come.” http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/06/28/canucks-can-draft-russians-again-and-they-get-a-huge-one/ At the time I also remember seeing a quote in which he said he intended to honour his contract with Avtomobilist, which at the time had two more seasons. btw, as has previously been mentioned contracts in the KHL run through April 30, so even though his season is over it would require co-operation from that KHL team for him to be available before then.
-
I'm with Junkyard Dog on this one. Boeser has outperformed expectations this season giving reason for excitement, but it is just one year along the pathway to developing into an NHL player. It remains a big step from the NCAA to the AHL and a further big step from the AHL to the NHL.
-
While the Leafs are widely rumoured to have the inside track on Zaitsev, it would take some maneuvering to get him signed before April 30, when his KHL contract expires.
-
Scoring isn't the main contribution Tryamkin would be expected to make in the NHL and single season +/- is pretty much totally irrelevant. I'm not saying Tryamkin is or isn't NHL ready (my guess is that he isn't quite there but might be kept by the Canucks next season anyway.) To me, playing about 20 min a night on a KHL playoff team (though not a top team) is more of an indication of his progress than goals and assists. If scoring ability in a lesser league was the main factor for a d-man, Jordan Subban would already be a Canuck regular.