-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by tyhee
-
Actually, development most decidedly does not mean look for the good over the bad. Development should include looking at both good and bad and deciding how the player will become best in the future, maximizing the good and trying to get rid of the bad. If you think the poster you quoted is merely bashing our prospect, perhaps you missed "The good thing is that Jake is young and with proper development he can live up to his potential and be a solid 30+ goal scorer consistently for us." Mindlessly saying ignore what a young prospect needs to improve-which is what you are really asking for when you say "why do you losers look for ways to bash Canucks prospects" and "look for the good over the bad" -is not the way to maximize development. I don't think ignoring the question of whether a young player is developing as expected is going to result in getting rid of or minimizing the weaknesses that all prospects have. Putting one's head in the sand may or may not work well for an ostrich. It is no way to run a hockey team.
-
I haven't seen his games at center for the Comets so what I am about to write will be second hand, mostly from the Comets thread on hfboards. Take it with a grain, or even a pitcher, of salt. I've formed the conclusion, though, that at least one of the regular Comets posters on hfboards seems to post some insightful and objective reports. He has been playing center. I may be wrong but think it's about 5 games now. That started when one game the Comets had none of their top 4 centers available. One was suspended, Vey had been called up, one was sick and one was hurt. The first couple games at center he was reportedly very good and didn't look out of place in any way. His skating was specifically mentioned as having improved. The last couple of games before tonight's game the reports on hfboards were much less favourable of him and Shinkaruk on his LW. Again, I'm just passing on the impressions I got from reading on another forum. Perhaps one of the posters from the Mohawk Valley has some personal insight.
-
Thx. Edited accordingly.
- 1,427 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
So far this year McDonagh has played only for the Rangers and shows as their top defensive player in time on ice, and Goligoski has played only for the Stars and showed as their 2nd highest defenceman in time on ice but is now 1st having moved ahead of Klingberg. What did I miss?
- 1,427 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Thanks for the summary. I didn't see that game. Your summary was easy to read and understand even though not written in your native language.
-
Posted 3 hours ago · Report post Critiquing the choice of pick is a critique of management, not the player. There's nothing wrong with critiquing management and there's nothing wrong with critiquing the player. The issue is the choice of thread in which to do it. No doubt there are management threads where one can agree or disagree with Benning's moves and there was no doubt a 2014 draft thread in which to discuss the choices made in the 2014 draft.
-
Well, to paraphrase, I think he said let's wait a while before we pass judgment on what this talented 19 year old kid will develop into.
-
No, the people who drafted the collective bargaining agreement covered it by placing limits on what bonuses are available and setting a maximum total remuneration including bonuses. Realistically it would have been shocking if the people who wrote the CBA were so inept as to leave that kind of opening. Total NHL compensation (not just salary, but total compensation including salary, signing bonus and games played bonus) can't exceed $925,000. (Article 9.3(a).) Total minor league compensation including bonuses cannot exceed $70,000 (Article 9.4, which I quoted earlier in this thread.) The performance bonuses permitted in the NHL are limited to a total aggregate amount of $212,500 and are in Exhibit 5 of the CBA. For defencemen the minimum required to get a performance bonus is set out as being in the top 4 d-men in total ice time or in ice time per game while playing 42 or more games, for scoring at least 10 goals, for scoring at least 25 assists, for getting at least 40 points or at least .49 ppg over the season while playing at least 42 games, for being in the top 3 d-men in +/- (playing at least 42 games), Peformance bonuses are permitted for 20 goals, for 35 assists, for 60 points, for .73 ppg over at least 42 games, for being in the top 3 forwards in +/- over the season while playing at least 42 games, for being in the top 2 d-men on his team in blocked shots (42 games required,) for making the All-Rookie team, for playing in the All-Star game and for being MVP in the All-Star game. Those aren't easily attainable bonuses and the total given in performance bonuses can't exceed $212,500, so they can't get him anywhere near $3 million (or anywhere near $2 million, for that matter.)
-
Firstly, D-Money, thanks for that work. I decided to continue on from your last paragraph which speaks of top pairing d-men. I looked through every NHL team and arbitrarily defined a top pairing d-man as one of the top two in average minutes per game on his team. It isn't perfect but it doesn't depend on any subjective judgments. There were probably better methods available to pick the top d-men and this results in some players (Hunwick, Stone for example) that few would consider legitimate top pairing d-men on decent teams, but I placed a fair value on being completely objective and on going by what the coaches thought of their players when assigning ice time. The results were: Montreal: Subban (2nd rd) Markov (6th rd) Boston: Chara (3rd rd, VFA) Krug (undrafted FA) Detroit: Kronwall (1st rd) DeKeyser (undrafted FA) (Green is just behind DeKeyser in ave TOI at present) Florida: B Campbell (6th rd, trade) Ekblad (1st rd #1 overall) Ottawa: Karlsson (1st rd) Methot (6th rd, trade) Tampa: Hedman (1st rd #2) Stralman (7th rd, VFA) Buffalo: Ristolainen (1st rd) Bogosian (1st rd, trade) Toronto: Hunwick (7th rd, VFA) Phaneuf (1st rd, trade) (Morgan Reilly, a 1st round pick, is a close 3rd in ave TOI on the Leafs) Wash Carlson (1st rd) Niskanen (1st round) NYI Hamonic (2nd rd) Leddy (1st rd, obtained in trade) NYR McDonagh (1st rd; trade) Klein (2nd rd, obtained in trade) (at this moment Girardi, an undrafted FA, is 1 second behind Klein in ave TOI for NYR) NJ Greene (undrafted FA) Larsson (1st rd) Phi del Zotto (1st rd) Streit (9th rd, obtained in trade) Pit Letang (3rd rd) Daley (2nd rd, obtained in trade) Carolina Faulk (2nd rd) Hainsey (1st rd) CBJ Johnson (1st rd) Savard (4th rd) Dallas Klingberg (5th rd) Goligoski (2nd rd; trade) St L Pietrangelo (1st rd) Bouwmeester (1st rd-#3 overall, obtained in trade) Chi Keith (2nd rd) Seabrook (1st rd) Nash Josi (2nd rd) Weber (2nd rd) Minn Suter (1st rd, FA) Spurgeon (6th rd not signed, signed as rookie FA) Col Beauchemin (3rd rd, FA) Johnson (1st rd, trade) (Tyson Barrie, a 3rd rounder, is a close 3rd in ave TOI for Colorado) Wpg Byfuglien (8th rd, trade) Myers (1st rd, trade) LA Doughty (1st rd #2) Muzzin (5th rounder not signed, rookie FA) SJ Burns (1st rd, trade) Vlasic (2nd rd) Vanc Edler (3rd rd) Tanev (undrafted FA) Phoenix Ekman-Larsson (1st rd) Stone (3rd rd) Calg Brodie (4th rd) Giordano (undrafted FA) Edm Klefbom (1st rd) Sekera (3rd rd, signed as FA) Ana Fowler (1st rd) Bieksa (??) (5th rd, trade) (to much complaining on the Ducks forum on hfboards, Bieksa narrowly leads Hampus Lindholm in average TOI. Lindholm was a 1st rd pick) Totals: 17 of 60 were drafted by their present teams in the 1st round 7 of 60 were drafted by their present teams in the 2nd round 3 of 60 were drafted by their present teams in the 3rd round 4 of 60 were drafted by their present teams lower than the 3rd round 7 of 60 came to their present teams as undrafted or rookie free agents, 5 of whom were never drafted and 2 of whom were low round picks who did not sign with the team drafting them 16 of 60 came to their present teams via trade 6 of 60 came to their present teams as veteran free agents Draft placings by round: 1-26 2-10 3-6 4-2 5-3 6-4 7-2 8-1 9-1 not drafted-5 Conclusions: None of this will be surprising or profound. -Almost half of all top pairing defencemen are drafted in the 1st round and the number available to be drafted later generally decreases as the rounds go by, especially after the 3rd round, but 30% of the players in the top two on their teams in average ice time were either drafted later than the 3rd round or went undrafted and were signed as undrafted free agents. -63.3% of all top pairing defencemen were either drafted by their present teams or signed by them as rookie free agents. -10% of top pairing defencemen came to their present teams as veteran free agents and about 26.7% were obtained by trade. Taking into account that (a) most of the top 2 d-men on each team are still with the organization they broke in with, and (b) obtaining a player by the draft is certainly cheaper than by trade or getting a veteran free agent it seems fairly clear that the best way to acquire top defencemen, just like it is the best place to acquire top forwards, is through the draft. That doesn't mean, though, that top d-men can't be acquired via trade or free agency, just that it isn't common and (my speculation) that will be because general managers want to keep those players and the cost to acquire them via trade or free agency will be high.
- 1,427 replies
-
- 10
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Rookie is defined in Article 1 as a player who has never signed a standard player contract. i.e.the quoted section applies to players signing their first standard player contract. You're right in figuring there is an exception. It is set out in Article 9.1(b) for European players signing a first standard player contract at the age of 28 or more, so if Tryamkin avoids signing an NHL contract until 2022 he can come over on a 1-way deal.
-
From the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement: 9.4 Minor League Compensation. Each SPC entered into with a Rookie in the Entry Level System shall automatically be deemed to be a "two way" SPC with a minor league salary equal to the Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary set forth in such SPC or, if no minor league salary is set forth, the greater of (i) $35,000 and (ii) the minimum minor league salary provided for Players in the Minors; provided, however, in no event may such an SPC provide for minor league compensation, including any bonuses for games played, greater than the amount indicated on the following chart: <there follows a chart which makes the current maximum elc minor league salary $70,000 where the player is drafted in any year from 2011 to 2022> A Group 1 Player may not contract for or receive any bonuses for minor league service other than a games played bonus. The maximum compensation payable to a Group 1 Player who is playing in the Major Juniors shall be U.S. $10,500 per League Year.
-
It would appear to me that Scherbak and Barbashev are eligible for the AHL because they turn 20 before December 31. Both Scherbak and Barbashev turn 20 this month, so will be 20 in 2015. While not worded as well as it might be, an article that refers to the age being by December 31 is at http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2012/8/1/3213217/bruins-nhl-chl-ahl-agreement-CBA-talks-2012 where it says in part: "Players drafted and playing for CHL teams are ineligible to play in the professional minor leagues (AHL, ECHL) until they are 20 years old (by December 31st of that year) or have completed four years in major juniors." Edit: beaten by Oilrigger by a minute
-
Do you have a source for that? Did USA Hockey ever say that was the reason Cassels was cut? Cassels only had one game left on his suspension when cut. It was widely reported that the CHL was prepared to lift the suspension if he made the team, though without a source for that. For example: "Cole Cassels survived the first three cuts by the United States world junior team and was one of 15 forwards remaining looking for 13 spots as of early this week. It’s expected OHL commissioner David Branch will lift the final game of Cassels’ suspension if he makes the team, but if not he will still need to sit out one more for the Generals, meaning a Dec. 30 return in Kingston ." http://www.durhamregion.com/sports-story/5229386-oshawa-generals-don-t-skip-a-beat-without-cassels-dal-colle/ When he was cut, the suspension wasn't given as a reason. For example, see this report saying he was conisdered a bubble player and when cut while the suspension was mentioned it was with the mention that it was expected it would be lifted for that one game: http://thecanuckway.com/2014/12/24/cole-cassels-released-from-us-wjc-roster/
-
I disagree with much of this argument. I'm not expressing an opinion on where Virtanen should be playing, but think that the arguments in the quoted post don't necessarily make sense. To take them a bit at a time: "...If he's playing like a serviceable 3rd liner (which he is) then how is that a detriment to the team?" Sandro17 didn't say he was a detriment to the team, though perhaps you took that and saying he isn't NHL ready as the same thing. (I don't think they are.) "If he's playing in the best league in the world, how is that a detriment to his development? The only way playing in the NHL can "stunt" a player, is when they come in with lofty expectations or the team has no other options (the "Saviour" type, McJesus, etc.). This doesn't seem to me to follow at all. Again, I'm looking at the logic, not Virtanen individually. If a player isn't good enough to do what he needs to do in games in the NHL, then playing at the highest level won't help him. If the play is in some way beyond him, he needs to practice things at a level at which he won't constantly fail. That's why it can be good for a player to star offensively in a lower league rather than be a plugger in a higher league. A developing player may get more shots, more passes and be more involved in the offensive game at a lower level and thus improve faster than if he was plugging away at a higher level where he didn't get the puck as much. "...The fine detailed skills you people seem to think he's lacking are not the kind of things you learn in the CHL in your +2 year." Why not? If he gets the puck more in Jr, shoots more in Jr, gets more chances to make passes in Jr, won't he get better ar it? Imo it is a fallacy to think that every player will necessarily develop best playing at the highest level. I don't pretend to know whether it will be best in the long run for Virtanen.
-
Congrats to Lu - moving up in all time wins - Luuuu
tyhee replied to gizmo2337's topic in General Hockey Discussion
He actually left over the situation involving who would play between he and Lack. Tortorella's decision to start Lack in the Heritage Classic was what brought the trade on. Schneider was already gone. -
My reaction was the same as that of Elvis. Tryamkin signed a contract and is meeting his contractual obligations, as imo he must. When a player accepts a scholarship, does the player actually sign an obligation to attend for 4 years? I didn't think that was the case. On searching the web I wasn't able to find anything that had the athlete committing for four years. In fact a page called "Understanding athletic college scholarships" states in part: "An athletic scholarship cannot be guaranteed for four years. NCAA institutions offer one-year college scholarships that can be renewable annually. At the end of each year, athletics-based aid may be canceled or reduced for any reason. " https://www.petersons.com/college-search/understanding-athletic-college-scholarships.aspx That certainly seems to say that the institution offers and athlete accepts his scholarship on an annual basis, which is consistent with the practice where athletes in various sports leave before their 4th year. Elite basketball players seldom stay in college for four years. That being said, it wouldn't be surprising in Demko's case if he chooses to graduate before leaving school. Note: A further web search revealed that since 2012 NCAA schools have been permitted to offer multi-year athletic scholarships. If they are offered I didn't see anything about what the athlete's obligations are. Not all schools offer multi-year scholarships. In 2012 Boston College decided not to (see the list of schools "Voting to Disallow Multi-Year Scholarships" at http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/02/24/which-schools-and-conferences-support-multi-year-scholarships/). I don't know whether that has changed.
-
Nice post. IT may be less of a concern because of Virt's 45 goals in his draft year, but I do sometimes wonder if a dominant scoring year in the dub this season might be good for Virt in the long-term, even though he is probably good enough to help the Canucks this season.
-
Edler, Tanev and Hamhuis aren't on the ice with him when he's playing his usual present pairing with Sbisa. They aren't there to help him with decisions, to help him clear the puck and to be the steadying influence. Instead, he's got the job of playing with the guy that everyone has looked shaky playing with. That, regardless of line or pair number, is a lot to put on a rookie.
-
I too think the Canucks likely have a gem, but really would rather see him with a steady defence partner. Even though he can help the team, and Sbisa, I'd rather see him get seasoning in the AHL than spend the season as Sbisa's defence partner. Hopefully he won't be hurt by it, but giving most of the responsbility of clearing the zone and some responsibility for positioning and directing the defence is risky, not in that he'll make mistakes (which is a certainty) but that he won't be learning positioning and defensive play from a vet and might after a period of time start to feel a little overwhelmed and find it hard to keep the natural composure that has been so impressive. I hope the fact that he's this good, this early, doesn't ultimately make it more difficult for him to become the player he is capable of being. It seems to me he's getting the Oilers treatment-feed the kids to the wolves and hope they come up stronger for it. Imo It hasn't worked all that well for the Oilers and is very different from the way Desjardins brought Horvat along last season.
-
"Small City" Sounds awful, doesn't it?
-
As others have mentioned, he'd have no real incentive to come over to play in the AHL. Right now he's successful in the SEL, in his hometown and making pretty good money. I'd see two possible ways he could come over: -the team think enough of him to give him a 1-way at Higgins/Hansen/Dorsett/Prust type money or better, or -he comes over on a PTO and he and if the team offers him enough after seeing how he fits in, he signs, while if it doesn't look like he'd be sure to be in the NHL, he could return to Sweden.
-
Article 9.4 of the NHL's Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that entry level contracts must be 2-way and sets a maximum amount of $70,000 for play in the minors. It is set out below. 9.4 Minor League Compensation. Each SPC entered into with a Rookie in the Entry Level System shall automatically be deemed to be a "two way" SPC with a minor league salary equal to the Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary set forth in such SPC or, if no minor league salary is set forth, the greater of (i) $35,000 and (ii) the minimum minor league salary provided for Players in the Minors; provided, however, in no event may such an SPC provide for minor league compensation, including any bonuses for games played, greater than the amount indicated on the following chart: 26 ARTICLE 9 9.5-9.7 Draft Year Maximum Minor League Compensation 2005 US$ 62,500 2006 US$ 62,500 2007 US$ 65,000 2008 US$ 65,000 2009 US$ 67,500 2010 US$ 67,500 2011 - 2022 US$ 70,000 A Group 1 Player may not contract for or receive any bonuses for minor league service other than a games played bonus. The maximum compensation payable to a Group 1 Player who is playing in the Major Juniors shall be U.S. $10,500 per League Year.
-
Hutton's been a pleasant surprise and there's no disgrace in not having foreseen that he'd be this good.
-
Doesn't it make sense to reverse this? If he's good enough to help the team now, why shouldn't he be here now? Then if for any reason he starts to fade, he can be sent to Utica. About the only reasons I can see not to keep him if he's good enough to help deal with asset management. One is the question of whether Canucks would lose someone to waivers if Hutton makes it, the other one, imo quite minor, is burning Hutton's 70 NHL game waiver period. Right now to me he's looking like he's ahead of Corrado and Sbisa on the depth chart, but I'm guessing Canucks will want to see more from him before making that decision.
-
Virtanen will be AHL-eligible in 2016-17, being 20 years of age at the beginning of the season. If he plays junior this season it would be his 4th season in major junior which would also make him AHL-eligible. That's just responding to the quoted passage, not expressing an opinion about where Virtanen is likely to spend the 2016-17 season.