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. I didn't know so started looking online and found http://www.athleticscholarships.net/question/am-i-too-old-to-play-college-sports. As Fred indicates the normal NCAA Division I or II limit would be 24 (high school plus one year before the time runs, then 5 years to complete 4 seasons.) However, there is an exception for hockey-the 5 years to complete 4 seasons rule starts at age 21. "There is an age limit for NCAA Division I and II sports. The NCAA allows a one year grace period after high school graduation for DI and II schools. One year after your high school class graduates is when your eligibility will start to be affected in all sports except for hockey, skiing and tennis. The eligibility clock does not start for hockey players and skiers until after their 21st birthday. Tennis players start losing eligibility 6 months after they graduate high school. The NCAA gives you 5 years to compete in 4 seasons athletically, with the fifth year being a red-shirt year. A red-shirt year gives athletes the opportunity to sit out a year of competition (for reasons such as injury or competition for playing time) and still be allowed to compete in all four years athletically. The NAIA does not have an age restriction; however they do take away seasons of competition for any participation in sports at a comparable level of competition after September 1st of your high school graduation year. NCAA Division III schools do not follow the same eligibility guidelines as Division I and II. Each school and conference determines eligibility standards at the DIII level."
  2. tyhee

    Anton Rodin | RW/LW

    Yep, Benning has only been adding prospects who are soft as butter, such as Virtanen, Pedan and Tryamkin. He also traded for that skilled but soft sniper Dorsett.
  3. tyhee

    Brendan Gaunce | C/LW

    There was certainly a Gaunce hater on hfboards, but I think it's unfair to tarnish the board because of it. There are going to be bad posts from bad posters in any open forum. There have been many games in which the summaries on hfboards have been complimentary to Gaunce and many on which they haven't. Consistency has been an issue and when he plays well it is noted and when he doesn't bring forth the effort it is noted. That isn't something just on hfboards, but has also been noted on this thread (see UticaHockey January 15 on this thread) and the issue of Gaunce's consistency is something that also came from the mouth of Travis Green, who said in an interview on tsn1040 on January 15 which I've quoted previously: " ... we've got to get him back to playing that quick power forward game, winning puck battles, going hard to the net, using his shot. He got away from that a little bit, that's not alarming, that's part of it, he's a 2nd year pro, took a big step over last year, from last year to this year. He's still having a very good season for us, I'm not sure of his point total. I try not to get caught up in that. I think last night I think he played close to 20 minutes for us and when he plays like he did last night he's not far away from being in the NHL, we've just got to get it so that's what he is every night, it's not play 10 good games then 5 bad ones, it's have 14 good games, then maybe have an average game and then you've got yourself a good NHL player." The link to the intervew is http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/green-jordan-subban-has-a-chance-to-be-a-good-nhl-player-1.422944. It was still active when I tried it a few minutes ago. I'm happy to take Green at is word that Gaunce if consistent would be a good NHL player and that as a 2nd year pro his inconsistency isn't alarming. Meanwhile, one should note that he HAS been inconsistent and inevitably that is going to give rise to comments on forums from those that notice, some reasonable and some much less so.
  4. Yes, some of us are truly old. The movie came out when I was in 1st yr university and I never believed that line but then, we're Canadians, eh?
  5. tyhee

    Brendan Gaunce | C/LW

    Cameron Gaunce can't be assigned to the minors without clearing waivers. He was waived by the Stars in September, 2014 and by the Panthers in September, 2015.
  6. This was in response to a question about sending them to the Comets. Essentially, they can't go to the Comets for the playoffs unless the Canucks send them back to junior before the end of the season (I don't recall what the deadline date is) and then only when their junior teams finish their seasons. NHL players can't play in the playoffs in the AHL unless they were on the AHL team's roster on a certain date (March 1?) and the agreement between the CHL and NHL precludes that from happening as both Virt and McCann are 19 and didn't play 4 CHL seasons..
  7. Sorry if this isn't the place to ask this question. It isn't immediately apparent to me where else to ask it. A few minutes ago I read a post which started from a viewpoint so far from my own that it caused me to take a look at the name of the poster. I was going to open his profile but noted he had reputation total of -15, so I didn't bother with the profile and went on in the thread to see Elvis shortly thereafter commenting in the -15. My question is, how does one get a negative total or, for that matter, a negative reputation point? I've read that there used to be a button for negative points or something of that nature, but is there still a way to get negative community reputation points? Thanks in advance.
  8. As Elvis said, they're still in the entry level system. There is a payoff from signing earlier in addition to the earlier receipt of the signing bonus (and the 1st year pay) but it doesn't come until later, when coming out of the entry level system. Demko, for the purpose of the entry level system, would be 20 if he signs this year or 21 next year (the relevant time being September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs. In either case he'd be subject to the entry level system for 3 seasons. So, if he signs this summer, in 2019-20 he'd be eligible for the greater money that comes from no longer being in the entry level system. If he waits until next year, he wouldn't be off the entry level system until 2020-21. So through 2020-21, if he signs this year he'll have 5 years pay with 2 years beyond the elc, while if he signs next year he'd have 4 years pay with only 1 year beyond the elc. The difference over the next five years would be one full year not on elc. The fact that he's stayed through 3 years of university might suggest that isn't much of a consideration for him.
  9. Yes, he'd be eligible. The agreement that kept the AHL from being an option for Virtanen and McCann this year is between the Canadian Hockey League (ie major junior) and the NHL. It doesn't apply to players if they aren't drafted from the QMJHL, OHL or WHL.
  10. This post gave me visions of him going to a takeout window, saying "Supersize me" and eventually growing to 6'-210 lb with 20% + body fat. :((
  11. dudes 25 years old..... The Hobey Baker is awarded to the best NCAA hockey player. Age theoretically doesn't have anything to do with it. Otoh viewing the numbers as to what they mean about the players as prospects, imo Demko's numbers as a 21 yo are more impressive than those of Garteig, who is 24.
  12. No, the entry level contract is automatically the length of time set out in the CBA. There is no option and even if the contract specified a different time period that specification would be inoperative. Under your suggestion, the best players would insist that they would only sign one year entry level deals. Connor McDavid, Aaron Ekblad and everyone else sign their entry level contracts for the required term with no hint of any discussion that they wanted a shorter term. Only a team of utter incompetents working for the NHL could leave a loophole that large. Article 9.1(b) of the CBA reads as follows: (b) Subject to subsection (c) below, the period covered by the SPC for every Rookie, and the number of years that such Player will be in the Entry Level System and subject to the compensation limits set out in this Article, shall be as indicated on the chart immediately below, and during such period, the Player shall be deemed to be a "Group 1 Player": First SPC Signing Age Period Covered by First SPC and Years in the Entry Level System and Subject to Compensation Limits 18-21 3 years 22-23 2 years 24 1 year 25 and older No required number of years, not in the Entry Level System and not subject to limits on compensation I haven't set out paragraph (c), which provides a 1 year elc provision for Europeans signing from ages 25-27. The maximum minor league compensation, including bonus, is set in Article 9.4 at $70,000.
  13. In his return to active play following an upper body injury Demko stopped 25 of 28 shots as Boston College beat Boston University 5-3 Friday night.
  14. tyhee

    Brendan Gaunce | C/LW

    I think that's a severe overstatement of what Green mentioned about the "little nagging injury." Starting at 9:08 Green said (leaving out some of the "and" and "uh" to put it together): Brendan, his game's slipped a little bit lately here I think. He went up, I thought played well for Vancouver, came back, had a little nagging injury that I think has affected him a little bit, we've been moving him around due to injuries and callups, played him at center again for probably, it might have been 5 to 7 games. Ultimately I still foresee him being a left winger. I've got him back on the wing now. I thought he played his best game last night probably in the last 7 or 8 games which is good to see, we've got to get him back to playing that quick power forward game, winning puck battles, going hard to the net, using his shot. He got away from that a little bit, that's not alarming, that's part of it, he's a 2nd year pro, took a big step over last year, from last year to this year. He's still having a very good season for us, I'm not sure of his point total. I try not to get caught up in that. I think last night I think he played close to 20 minutes for us and when he plays like he did last night he's not far away from being in the NHL, we've just got to get it so that's what he is every night, it's not play 10 good games then 5 bad ones, it's have 14 good games, then maybe have an average game and then you've got yourself a good NHL player. You can find the interview by going to http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410, and under TSN 1040/1410 FEATURED clicking on Green: Jordan Subban has a chance to be a good NHL player. The link is http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/green-jordan-subban-has-a-chance-to-be-a-good-nhl-player-1.422944
  15. tyhee

    Brendan Gaunce | C/LW

    Travis Green on TSNRadio commented on a number of prospects. About Gaunce he indicated he'd slipped a bit recently, that he needs to play hard every night, that his best game in his last 7 or 8 games was last night playing LW and that he sees him ultimately as a left winger.
  16. If one assumes he'd have some adjustment period and he isn't going to make the Canucks instantly a good team, I'd question whether it's worth burning a year off his elc.
  17. I wasn't looking to argue the point here and still am not . My point was that one can't assume everyone sees things the same. It has been argued before and my reasons at this stage aren't important, what's done is done and whether he was ready or not isn't important. Simply since you asked based on what, my reasons at the time were pretty simple. I'd read that Melanson had said something like Markstrom had done his work on his technque and was pretty much there. I don't remember exactly what or where I saw it. My recollection was that what I saw wasn't even a direct quote. Further, it was reported Gillis intended to go with Lack/Markstrom. Admittedly, going on non-specific things in the press wasn't much in the way of authority. My opinion boiled down to if it's good enough for Melanson and Gillis, it's good enough that I didn't think the Canucks should have been spending $6 million a season for three years to move everybody in the system down one notch and risk losing Markstrom on waivers in a rebuilding situation. Since then Markstrom started out last season in spectacular form. He was actually even better at the start of the season than he was the rest of the way. He didn't start out at one level and go to another one. He started off with several shutouts and then was still good, but not so amazing, the rest of the way. That to me was consistent with him being ready at the start of the season rather than maturing into it. I understand and respect the counterarguments from people who point out his past NHL performance, including those that point out his NHL performance last year. As for last year, I've posted many times about my views of the coach's goalie management and don't propose to go through it again now. My arguments about him being ready haven't changed the minds of those that think he wasn't any more than their arguments have changed mine. That all being said I have to admit reading Hobart16's post just above this made me think, at least a little, about whether Markstrom may have gained confidence last season which may have helped make him better going forward and whether that difference was worth 3 x $6 million and losing Lack. The point is simple. We have many divergent views. What one person may thing is obvious to everyone may be the opposite of what someone else thinks even after considering what points are to made each way.
  18. No, it wasn't. I firmly believed Markstrom was ready if given a reasonable chance. I thought going last season with Lack/Markstrom would better for Lack, better for Markstrom, better for Eriksson, better for Cannata, about the same for the Canucks last year while better for this and future years. I'm not asking you to agree, just saying you can't assume that your view is held by "everyone."
  19. I've been watching your argument on the Virtanen discussion thread.

    My impression has been taht you're a better person than the level this discussion has gotten to.

    My way of handling the inevitable frustrations on CDC is to sign off for a day or such longer or shorter time as it takes me to change my perspective.

    I hope it doesn't offend you, but I recommend that method heartily.

     

    1. McCannon

      McCannon

      I have found the block function works quite well also and no offense taken - I actually am not worked up at all. Its more funny to me and I find the lack of logic quite funny and frightening. While I appreciate there are some adolescents on the board who's ability to formulate a logical argument is limited through experience and education, I am quite surprised at those suggesting they are adults whose inability to do the same is befuddling! :)

  20. I too expect him to stay at UND for next season but if he didn't, why couldn't he play in the AHL? I don't think the USHL is part of the NHL-CHL agreement.
  21. Perhaps we need volunteers to count penalties not called against teams playing against the Canucks, penalties called against the Canucks that wouldn't be called if it weren't for the reputation brought by Burr and someone to figure out how many goals that costs in a season and convert it to wins. Oh, I forgot-the people must be completely objective about it. That lets out the world. Can anyone be completely objective about Burrows? There's no doubt Burr has been a controversial figure. Some of the controversy is warranted, much is not. I too would have bitten Bergeron if he deliberately stuck a finger in my mouth as an intimidation tactic-if someone is going to intimidate by sticking a finger in one's mouth, that is the obvious response. I think Burr was telling the truth about the Auger incident and that he has been treated badly by the league for having the guts to speak out to expose a referee who had determined he would not call a game in accordance with the rule book. There's little doubt Burrows earned a bad reputation with embellishment. Is there a line that his words to O'Sullivan crossed? I wasn't aware of there being such a line. Regardless, the words as alleged were bad and I don't support saying them. It's several years old, it was bad, it's over. I don't place give any credibility to Tootoo's recent complaints. I don't believe Burrows gets the same treatment from game officials as other players and believe that hurts the Canucks, but can't quantify it. For one recent example, I think the Canucks' win over Tampa just before Christmas was despite the refs calling the game to punish Burrows. That might seem unlikely but the only logical explanation I've seen for the refereeing that night was Botchford's explanation at http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/22/the-provies-the-night-of-1000-power-plays-and-the-story-of-why-the-canucks-and-refs-had-a-falling-out/ In part that read: " ... it was Burrows who was rubbed out along the boards, on a play that could easily be viewed as a cheap shot. Andrej Sustr gets Burrows high, maybe in the head, catching him along the boards in a vulnerable spot. ... You do something like this, and there is going to be a reaction, and it is that reaction the ref was waiting to call, not the hit, as he kept his eyes trained on the trailing action rather than the puck." etc It makes for interesting and infuriating reading. Without knowing how Auger called that game against Burrows in January, 2010 and without knowing how the referees actually called the game between the Canucks and the Lightning last month claiming that the referees were biased seems like whining. I believe though that the actual calls support the view that the officials were biased, had no intention calling an even game and that Burrows past transgressions are the reason the officials made the calls they did. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm a believer. Burrows and by extension his team will on some occasions be the subject of calls that would not be made on other players and won't get calls when offended against that other players would get.
  22. The Canucks had played 29 games before Virtanen was assigned to Utica for his conditioning assignment on Dec 8. He was assigned from there straight to the Canadian Junior team on Dec 13.
  23. The thing is, it hasn't hurt LD's NHL play. Compare his play last season with this. He's improved tremendously and he has not been a lazy NHL player. Yes, he was better than everyone else in junior. I'll even accept that he didn't play hard for the Rockets-but he went from a non-scorer in the NHL to getting his points in junior and came into this NHL season ready to go. If Jake is down and finds it hard to go all out in junior but gets his offensive confidence and develops anyway, what do we care whether he is as good as he can be in junior? The important thing is what he contributes for the Canucks in the future. Further, Calgary (WHL) is a successful team this season. They could have a good run and he could be part of a winning environment. Sorry to be negative, but that might not be the case in Vancouver, where the team rates, in my view, to be somewhere between fine and dreadful the rest of the way. It might be fine, but if it is a tire fire perhaps it would be better to have him scoring goals on a winning junior team.
  24. I think he has shown enough to think he will be a useful NHL player even if he never becomes a good NHL scorer. However, I believe his best development path at present is to return to junior. While he's perhaps been better defensively both in Utica and in Vancouver and is clearly tough enough physically for the NHL, I don't see any signs of offensive improvement. I'd choose to return him to junior in hopes he gets his offensive touch back and develops it further. It follows that if he is indeed staying in the NHL, I would consider that a mistake in terms of his development. Otoh, with Baertschi out for a bit and Kenins not showing the form of last season, it may well be that Virtanen can contribute for the Canucks right now. I'd still rather see him in junior the rest of the season even if that's the case, though. Linden was 17 during the 1988 tournament. Virtanen is 19, a year older than Linden was when he was scoring 30 goals and 29 assists as a Canucks' rookie at the age of 18. Also, Hodgson was 18 (almost 19) in the WJC in 1989. While I don't argue that performance in the WJC is determinative of future NHL peformance, comparing the performance of a 17 year old, an 18 year old and a 19 year old is way offbase. There's too much improvement from season to season for that to make any sense.
  25. Sorry not to see your question for a couple of days about which Mint distro.  I finally saw and answered it.

    17.2 Mate, but with the XFCE desktop installed on top and used almost exclusively.  I use very old computers. 

×
×
  • Create New...