drofssalg

As an Edmonton season ticket holder, I am most baffled by this move. It seems like it is about mentoring - Broberg, Bouchard, Lagesson, Bear. Perhaps Keith gets to play with Bouchard? I suspect it has a lot to do with Klefbom being out long term as well so the cap issue is minor. I just figure there would have been better deals to make than that - especially with no cap retention. Certainly does not help the Oilers from a cap perspective but I suspect that Neal and Koskinen are on buyouts soon. Time will tell what the other moves will be to sort this out. But like I said, baffling.

Can't see how Keith fits in Vancouver... or Edmonton, or Calgary. If the deal was sweet enough but I can't see how trading bad contracts with one year left for a bad contract with 2 years left makes sense. If Edler was not being re-signed then maybe if Chicago retained 50% for cap purposes and threw in a high pick. But even that seems like a bad move. The contract is buy out proof... so unless it's Calgary and they are getting Chicago's first I just can't see it being Western Canada. Edmonton can't waste their cap on him and does not need picks or prospects. And why Calgary would want a 38 year old d-man in serious decline when they already have that in Giordano makes no sense. Has to be Seattle with a sweetener for the expansion draft.

Wonder if the Flames would pursue Tarasenko? Gaudreau? Plus? Or is there a plus?? Certainly a direction the Flames need to pursue, just not sure the Blues want Gaudreau. Mind you Johnny Hockey could be reinvigorated there and maybe Tarasenko can mesh with Monahan (or maybe Monahan is flipped for Eichel or another center). I would suspect the Flames want to keep Tkachuk but he would be the perfect flip back the other way... home town and all. I think St Louis has to add (at least from the Flames perspective) if Tkachuk is being moved. While the Canucks need his skill set, I can't see how they can give up the assets to get him nor then afford to keep him long term with all the other players that will need raises over the next few seasons.

Head to a meeting and miss the official announcement. Thanks to those that picked up the official details. Not really surprised it is essentially buyout proof. I am surprised that GM's keep getting forced into contracts like this. Good for RNH, bad for the Oilers. Oilers window is the next 5 years by the looks of it (which was predictable before this contract anyway). I really did think this contract would be more front loaded with signing bonuses to allow the salary to be low towards the end. Not as team friendly as I thought it might be. How many others are thinking that Horvat's next deal is going to be very similar to this? Can the Canucks keep the cap hit under between 6 and 6.5?

I think RNH being off the market makes Buffalo happy with Reinhart being available. RNH being signed removes that thought for other GM's. From an off season fun perspective, RNH being signed helps... curious to see how the dominos start to fall.

I think it is 2 years too long. Be curious to see how the NMC is and how front loaded or signing bonus driven the contract is. Obviously they are using the 8 years to bring down the cap hit but that make it a good value contract. RNH at 6 plus would be tough to take in a flat cap world for the next few seasons.

Elliotte Friedman reporting Nugent Hopkins about to sign 8 yr 40 million contract. (8x5). Good value for Oilers at that price. Might be 2 seasons too long. Sounds like full no move as well. Edit: Ryan Rishaug tweeting it is 8 years 41 million, to be announced today.

We are originally from BC - from the Cariboo. My mom through her involvement in the regional district knew the Price family - an absolutely wonderful family. I have no issue with cheering for Montreal mostly because of Carey Price. But calling them "Canada's team" does irritate me given the hate for the Canucks by the majority of Canada back in 2011. Hoping for an Islanders/Canadiens final. The past few years I figure if the Canucks aren't there to win it, then at least let if be either a team that has never won or a team that has not won in a long time. Ilses and Habs fit that long time no win bill.

Would I take Tkachuk on the Canucks? I am one of the few who would. There are plenty of examples of players that mature and smarten up. Nothing like a trade to smarten a player up. That said, the Flames are not sending him to Vancouver unless the return is stupid good (which I can't see Benning doing). Toronto, Ottawa, St Louis or Buffalo are the likely candidates. I can't see LA getting him unless they have a counselling session for Daughty. Ottawa has the assets and would put the brothers together. I could see Calgary trading with Toronto for Marner with a separate Gaudreau trade for someone else. More likely I see Tkachuk staying put and Giordano and Gaudreau being traded. Calgary should be a better team so Treliving has to do something to fix it. I just hope the off season has some transactions. The salary cap has sure killed the fun in the off season. It would be great to actually see some trades that we can talk about... Hoping for an interesting off season for a change. Tkachuk, Eichel, Marner, Gaudreau, Reinhart... what does Columbus do with Laine? There is so much potential there for some real deals.

I was noticing the "anniversary"... My bad for breaking Rangers news on such a day as this.

Larry Brooks is reporting (on Twitter) that Gerard Gallant has agreed to coach the New York Rangers. Good signing. I am curious to see what Gallant can do with the up and coming talent the Rangers have.

I guess my bigger fear is I see Benning overpaying to make any of those moves. Keeping the first this year and next is critical to keeping the cupboards stocked. I always support a real hockey trade. In a flat cap world those won't be easy. I agree there are moves that can be made and should be if they are good value deals. I should have said that in my original post. Trading Ferland is an excellent idea but oddly enough I suspect the Canucks will need that LTIR cap space themselves thus missing out on an opportunity to turn it into something. At the very least Pettersson and Hughes need to be signed before he makes moves - Benning needs that cap certainty otherwise he will create the same problem he is helping another team with. Also buying out LE doesn't work - his bonus makes it a pointless endeavour (minors saves 1 million, buy out saves 2 so only 1 million difference). Virtanen can be bought out (negligible cap impact and a must do for the obvious reason). Holtby is a maybe to me. Good savings for 21/22 but 1.9 hit the year after plus you still need to sign another backup. Other than Virtanen I still believe just let it go on the bad contracts. I think Holtby can be a "better" goalie next season - assuming Ian Clark is back there is more time to work on his game plus you can pick his starts better. I am not a betting man but I think there will be a Virtanen buyout, a sweetener (one or two of Lind, Gadjovich, Lockwood?) to Seattle to take Roussel or Holtby and some sort of a "hockey" trade (involving Miller or Schmidt?) - possibly getting one of the players you mention. While I don't wish a career ending injury for Beagle, I wonder his status as well. It will be an interesting off season. I just hope for moves at the "safer" end of the spectrum - controlled UFA spending and don't mortgage the future in any trade (keep the firsts).

Building a team is 4 parts skill (draft, trade, free agents and cap management) and 2 parts luck (team chemistry - sum of the whole becomes greater than the parts, and how well your competition does at the same time - e.g. to get past Colorado you need to be better than Colorado). The path is not linear and there is no science as per se. I am in this for as long as it take. I have invested 45 years into being a Canucks fan and I am not pulling the plug on that. I don't think this team is a contender but it has the pieces to become one. I think Benning's time runs out and the next GM gets to see if they can manage the parts into being greater than just the individual pieces. But that is a few years down the road. My bigger fear is Benning tries to push it. I really believe that the message should be "21/22 is a let it ride year". Do not do anything, let the bad contracts expire, let Seattle take who they take and just let it be. I think there are a lot of fans that can agree with that direction. 22/23 is when the real fixing can occur. I am patient and I can get on board with that. Making more bad moves - signing free agents to bad contracts, trading away picks or prospects to offload bad contracts, buying out players and hurting future cap space, trading picks or prospects to add that better player (e.g. Seth Jones) and trading picks or prospects to get Seattle to take a bad contract - should not be done for 21/22.

Well it would not likely have to be much longer except for some of the bad signings, trades that Benning made. If we are optimistic, I think if you look at the Avalanche, they started their rebuild in 2009... so the Canucks are 5 years behind that. I don't see how the damage can be fixed quickly. I would rather see Benning not make knee jerk moves to fix the team only to fail and push the timeline out further. The Canucks are not far off assuming that Benning (or the next GM) doesn't make rash moves. I personally think 3 to 5 more seasons (with progress until then). Again, if the Canucks are lucky, they could be like the Avalanche. Other than maybe the Penguins, most teams don't turn it around in less than a decade and the sad reality many teams never actually become contenders before they have to rebuild again. The Canucks have some great pieces, now it will just take a smart GM to finish it off.

Hoping Benning is all bluster and nothing turns out to actually happen. While not a popular take, Benning needs to just ride out this offseason and into next season. Don't buy anyone out, don't trade away picks or prospects to protect someone from Seattle or get rid of a LE or Holtby. Just let 21/22 be the year where the bad contracts expire. If he were to just communicate that clearly to the fan base - admit the errors and let people know that 21/22 is going to be a challenging year with the 22/23 offseason being where change can happen. The other reality is making trades - with what? The Canucks depth is not as good as many profess. Holtby, Beagle, Roussel, Virtanen and Eriksson are all negative value. The assets of value are the assets the Canucks want to keep (Hughes, Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Rathbone). I don't see MacEwen, Gadjovich, Lind, Lockwood, Juolevi, Rafferty getting much in return. And draft picks should be off the table. That leaves Miller and Schmidt - Miller will get a great return, Schmidt not so much. So Benning wanting to be aggressive and actually able to be aggressive likely do not align. A wild thought to me would be seeing if New Jersey would take Quinn Hughes for Ty Smith and the Islanders first round pick that Jersey has. That buys the Canucks 2 seasons of entry level contract plus a first rounder. Likely an unpopular idea but I would take that. I would also look to trade Miller. I am more inclined to keep building as I believe this team does not have the pieces yet to be a contender and when Miller is up for a new contract he won't be affordable with Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes taking up some serious cap space. His high trade value is now - he is a point a game, play driver with a great contract. I would try to trade Ferland's contract to the Leafs to give them some LTIR space (in reality the Canucks will need that LTIR space). I think the Canucks need at least two more good drafts - this year and next - to shore up the prospect pool. So being a competitive team that misses the playoffs next season is a win to me. Benning just needs to not trade away those picks. Here's to hoping he plays the long game and stays patient.

Always fun to prognosticate. I see Vegas at the top spot - very good team feasting on a largely weak Pacific. Edmonton in second - the caveat being goaltending - they need a different tandem. I see Smith back but doubt he can replicate this season and Koskinen is a disaster. If they can get an NHL goalie that can play 25 - 35 games and play well - second is theirs. The rest gets tricky - Calgary/Vancouver/LA/Seattle duke it out for 3 to 6th. Calgary is going to make changes - what that does to their team will depend on if it is now or future type deals. I think Gaudreau is gone but what is the return? Picks and prospects and Calgary falls, roster players (and it works) Calgary bounces back. Seattle will depend on how successful the ED is - I don't think they make out like Vegas. LA - how big of a step does their youth take? And Vancouver, healthy Pettersson with a good start and some more change on D and in the "weaker" Pacific the Canucks could come in 3rd. I still think Vancouver is more likely 4th or 5th - I just don't see enough change happening in time to save 21/22. Whoever is GM needs to just not do anything rash - ride out the remaining year on Beagle, Roussel, Holtby, Eriksson, don't re-sign Sutter, Edler and don't "pay" Seattle to take a particular player. Let 21/22 just be and worry more about 22/23 and on. The Canucks prospect pool needs another good draft this year and next and that is critical to any possibility of future contention. Giving up picks and prospects to get out from under bad contracts is not a good plan at this point. I can see similarities to Colorado but is the Canucks GM willing to trade someone like Miller for a great return? Colorado is a worse team without that reward from the Duchene trade... My guess as of today would be Vegas Edmonton Calgary LA Vancouver Seattle SJ Anaheim 3rd through 6th will be pretty close in points and likely where the guess will be wrong.

Predicting the Canucks get between 4 and 6 points in the final 5 games. Hoping for zero but the Flames will likely tank better than the Canucks. Hoping for a perfect split with the Flames - 4 points each and a loss to the Oilers. Worst case we get 10 points as the players are playing for "pride". I am glad they want to win as that is the right attitude. But at this time of year when having the best possible pick position is critical it will be frustrating to watch the Canucks win away draft positions. Thanks Fanfor42 for the work on where they place depending on points earned in the final 5 games.

I am not techy enough to insert a clip... Lots of good clips on Twitter of the kicking/kneeing motion by MacEwen as he skates by Nurse on the way to the bench. That is what the NHL is looking at. Not saying I think it is worth looking at. But that is what they are. It is not the collision of MacEwen and Nurse that is the issue. Edit: Grabbed a pic off of Twitter. If there is a copyright or other issue, I will remove.

The kneeing motion by MacEwen while Nurse was on the ice was not a smart play - but it does not look like contact was made. Certainly an intentional motion but minimal contact at worse. It was a bad reaction by MacEwen to Nurse's hit (that actually ended up worse for Nurse). The Hamonic hit on Chaisson was worse however. If any play was to get a good look by DoPS I thought that one would. And I would have been ok with that. If they are looking at MacEwen, then that opens us that McDavid's elbow on Schmidt that was just before their second goal should get a look as well as McDavid's attempted hit on Highmore (McDavid almost wrecked his own knee falling down so punishment served). And of course then the WWE takedown by Nurse should get a look (not to mention his stick work prior to the fight). DoPS does not do themselves any favours to adding credibility to their role by overlooking somethings to focus on something else.

Last nights loss should be it but still not mathematically out. One more loss... Hoping for no more than 6 points the rest of the season... that and a little luck in the lottery.

Safe to say Canucks and Flames are eliminated. Unless Montreal or Winnipeg want to go on a 5 game losing streak to finish the year... Canucks still need to go 9/1 and the Flames need to go 6/0. The math on where the Canucks will finish in the standings is a bit trickier. I would think the Canucks manage 6 points in the last 10 games which will put them at 47. Depending on how Columbus, LA, Detroit, Ottawa and San Jose finish will determine the standings (goes without saying I know). So I don't see a bottom 3 finish (Buffalo, Anaheim and Jersey have those spots locked up). Seattle slides in at 3. So the Canucks will draft 6 to 10 (without any lottery luck/punishment) as I assume that Columbus and Detroit don't get to 47 points either. That 6 to 10 range is going to be tight and tie breaks will likely come in to play. Fortunately the Canucks have lousy RW and ROW's... The 4 games against Calgary will be key. Just need to hope for some lottery kindness for a change.

Dropping the bar to 59 given how crappy Montreal is. At 59, Montreal needs to finish out at 500 (4 and 4). Vancouver still needs to go 9 and 4 (and as mentioned they still lose on the tie break so they actually need one more point so 9-3-1) 9 of the Canucks remaining 13 are against Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton... that's a tough schedule. Not eliminated mathematically but not promising at all. Oddly enough if Ottawa wins all 6 remaining and Montreal loses all their games, it is possible Ottawa could make the playoffs (if Calgary and Vancouver crap the bed too). Not exactly an epic playoff race... it's almost like Montreal wants to not make it.

I moved the playoff bar from 63 down to 61 points. Toronto is in. Ottawa is out. Edmonton and Winnipeg are in (barring epic meltdowns). Calgary pretty much eliminated (8 games left and have to win them all). Montreal has to go 5 and 4 with their remaining 9 games. Vancouver has to go 10 and 4 with their remaining games. So the Canucks still are not officially eliminated. But 5 games left against the Oilers, 2 each against Toronto and Winnipeg certainly pushes the odds not in their favour. This is the same story for the last couple month. Playoffs have been a possibility but the record required to make up the ground is not something this team is capable of (playing at a 60% or higher win rate for all remaining games).

Update on the wins/losses needed to get to 63 points: Montreal with their win last night needs to go 12/12 Vancouver needs to go 14/5 Calgary needs to go 14/5 I do not predict Montreal will do much better than 12/12 but I just don't see Vancouver going 14/5.

Forget about Toronto, Edmonton and Winnipeg. The Canucks are concerned with how Montreal (and to a lesser extent Calgary) does. Assuming a 62 point 4th spot: Montreal needs to go 13 and 12 for 26 points more points Calgary needs to go 15 and 9 for 30 points more points Vancouver needs to go 14 and 7 for 28 points more points The points are based on games up to March 21. If you look at the points required it looks so close, but looking at the records to get there the Canucks do not have a lot of leeway. It will become a lot clearer during the week off and Montreal catches up in games played. Basically Montreal needs to finish the season out at .520 to secure a playoff spot - easier to run out 25 games at .520 than 21 games at .667. Honestly, I expect the Canucks to miss the playoffs but it likely ends up being by only a couple points because I don't see Montreal doing better than 13/12.