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

TheRealistOptimist

Members
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

TheRealistOptimist's Achievements

Abbotsford Prospect

Abbotsford Prospect (2/14)

250

Reputation

  1. 2020-21 - $5,666,667 2021-22 - $3,666,667 2022-23 - $666,667 2023-24 - $666,667 Unfortunately it makes little to no sense to buy him out this year as the Canucks would save more by burying him in the minors in 2020-21.
  2. Baertschi and Sutter have no business being buyout options. We have 3 slots to retain money on in trades...USE THEM. You can find a suitor for Sutter at 2.1 and Baertschi at 1.7 without giving up much. That saves you about 2.5 million right there. Buying them out is essentially the same cost as retaining half in a trade except they count an extra year against the cap. The trade that makes the most sense to me is Cory Schneider for Loui Eriksson. Canucks buyout Schneider (NJ tells Schneider he's getting bought out either way) which carries a 2.0 cap hit for 4 years (Van gets 4 million dollar savings for 2 years). NJ saves at least 3 million in real life dollars and the cap hit doesn't matter to them this year or probably next. but they could buyout Eriksson at any point if they wanted. In a pandemic saving 3+ million in real dollars could be a real benefit to a team. I don't think you would need to add much, if anything as a sweetener. Otherwise, I just wait out Loui's contract for at least another year and send him to the minors. I don't sign Marky for over 5.5 (preferably no more than 5.0). I am actually open to letting him walk and going with Demko. I sign Toffoli for 5.25 max. I would be willing to let Tanev walk as well but I could see him coming back for around 5 million I sign Stecher for 3.2 and Virtanen for 2.5. Those are big enough raises that I think they would sign them. If Stecher doesn't accept that than I try and trade him or let him walk and that frees up more cap space. If you need cap space, I would trade Pearson and his 3.75 cap hit because I don't see him being signed long term after next year, I also can't see us trading him at next years deadline if we are in a playoff race. So with his little bit of a resurgence, I think we could actually get a decent asset back in return for him now. Were not going to be adding much this offseason and that's ok. Were still a young team with at formidable top 6 (with or without Pearson).
  3. You missed the point completely. Louis Eriksson based on similar stats got a 6 year deal worth around 8% of the total salary cap in 2016-17, meanwhile Anson Carter got a 1 year deal worth 5.5% of the total cap in 2006-07. So if your looking at it from Anson Carter's point of view, I can see why he may feel the way he feels. Now, this example is only one year and one player and to be honest I don't really care to do the research on more players who put up similar numbers heading into free agency throughout the years and what deals they ended up with. I think there are probably many other reasons why he didn't get a multi-year deal worth more than he did and I don't agree with him that race played a factor in his not getting a better contract offer with the Canucks. But I can see why he may be jaded towards the NHL as a whole.
  4. Yes. except he didn’t say it was a fact, these are just his thoughts. I can also see why he is thinking the way he is
  5. Absolutely I never said otherwise. Just trying to understand and state how he could feel that he was treated differently. I don’t blame the Canucks at all for not signing him.
  6. Yes he had a down year the year before the Canucks but you are wrong that those other years were early in his career. 2001-02 - EDM - 60 points in 82 games 2002-03 - EDM/NYR - 60 points in 79 games 2003-04 - NYR/WSH/LAK - 28 points in 77 games 2004-05 - Lockout 2005-06 - VAN - 55 points in 81 games 3 of his past 4 seasons with 55 points or more.
  7. I needed a refresher too but go look at his prior stats. There were 3 better than average seasons out of his past 4. They weren't as mediocre as we might've thought.
  8. As a kid I called him "Stone hands" that year because I feel even though he scored 33 goals he missed so many other opportunities, he should've had like 50 goals that year, the Sedin's set him up on a tee so many times from what I recall. I did like him though and remember thinking he was greedy for not re-signing. As for his statement, I think you really have to parse what he said. He didn't say the Canucks were racist for not signing him. He did say he thinks race played a part in him not getting offered more by the Canucks. When it comes to that statement, I am not sure but I think I can see where he is coming from. I am sure he probably feels his season was viewed more as a "fluke" because of his skin colour, whereas a white player may have got a big contract. I mean he had been a consistent player putting up 40+ points in 7 of the past 8 seasons, including 55+ points in 3 of the past 4 seasons. Now it was a weird time because of the NHL Lockout and implementation of the salary cap and the 24% salary rollback that came with that. Just as an example, Louis Eriksson had 0.65 ppg over his past 4 seasons heading into Free Agency and was almost 31 years old, he was viewed as one of the top FA and as we all know signed a $6 million per year deal. Well Carter also averaged 0.65 ppg over his past 4 seasons heading into FA, now he was slightly older having just turned 32. With all that I can understand why he might feel a certain way. Now he got a decent deal AAV wise but probably a little less than a UFA in his position normally get and also nowhere close to the long term deal most would get. This proved to be a smart move by all teams by not giving him any term but it's definitely a bit unusual in regards to how most teams operate during Free Agency. Anyways this is just a different way of looking at and understanding his statement. Overall in my opinion not a racist move by the Canucks though. ps. I missed 11 games with NYR where he scored 5 points. This drops his ppg slightly lower to 0.64 ppg.
  9. This all seemingly comes down to era's. Stan Smyl - People who watched Smyl seem to hold him in high regards but other than a couple seasons where he was top 30 in points he was not dominant compared to his peers statistically. He played in the league at a time where there was only 17-21 teams, 1 season of only 17 teams and 12 seasons of 21 teams. The Canucks had a losing record every season he played, in fact they never even finished the regular season in the top half of the standings, yet they made the playoffs in 9 out of his 13 seasons. His teams lost in the 1st round of the playoffs in 8 of those 9 years they qualified. His only team success in the playoffs came during one miracle run to the Cup Finals, where as we all know they unfortunately lost. Trevor Linden - Perhaps the most beloved Canuck in team history. His time in Vancouver was split into two seperate stints, his first one being where he was most impactful for the team. However even during this first 9 year stint, he was nothing to write home about offensively. In his prime he was finshing around 30th-40th in the league in scoring and that was only for 4 out of the 9 seasons. When he returned he was a much less effective offensive player and was no longer a focal part of the team. Now, during his first 9 seasons he played during an era of constant change in the NHL with the amount of teams in the league increasing from 21 teams to 26 teams. Lindens teams had 3 winning seasons, 5 losings seasons and 1 0.500 season. Only 3 of these seasons did the team finish in the to half of the league and that also coincided with the arrival of Pavel Bure. The Canucks qualified for the playoffs in 7 of these 9 seasons however some of these are due to the flawed playoff format. One season (90-91) they finished 17th out 21 teams in points and yet still qualified for the playoffs. They lost in the 1st round - 3 times, 2nd round - 3 times and they also had one run to the Stanley Cup Finals in which they lost. Markus Naslund - Was a NHL Superstar who for a large portion of his time in Vancouver was a top 5 forward in the league and an elite scorer, in fact over a 4 year stretch from the 2000-01 season (the point he was named Captain) to the end of the 2003-04 season he was 1st in Goals and Assists in the ENTIRE league. This is on a whole different level than anything Smyl or Linden accomplished. In Naslund's 11 full seasons in Van, the team had 6 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons. Once he became Captain the team had 6 winning seasons and ONLY 1 losing season. They qualified for the playoffs in 5 out of his 11 seasons in Van and in 5 out of 7 seasons once he was named Captain. They lost in the 1st round - 3 times (2 times to the Cup Champs and 1 to Cup finalist) and they lost twice in the 2nd round (1 time to the eventual Cup winners). While Linden and Smyl's teams were making the playoffs with losing records during Naslund's era they never made the playoffs with a losing record and even missed the playoffs 1 year with a winning record. During Naslund's era the number of teams increased from 26 to 27 to 28 and then in 2000-01 to 30. Anyways everybody will judge era's differently and most will favour the era's they grew up watching as kids that cemented their fandom and love of hockey. However in terms of great players in Canucks history, Naslund is without a doubt one of the best, in fact he was on a shortlist of best in the league during his time and that is not something Linden or Smyl could say. This to me means he should and rightfully does have his name and number hanging in the rafters.
  10. It is funny how people can have such different perspectives about the same market and fanbase.
  11. The reports have been that Brackett wants full autonomy.
  12. I have 3 questions - If Judd Brackett ever gets named GM somewhere, will he still be responsible for his teams draft success? (assuming they have any) Also will he give full autonomy of the amateur scouting staff away? Also would you want him to?
  13. "The next season, Brackett was named Vancouver’s director of amateur scouting by Trevor Linden" A quote from this article someone posted above - https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/this-seasons-best-free-agent-might-end-up-being-vancouvers-judd-brackett So was it Benning who promoted him?
  14. Yet another one sided article, which only gives credit to Brackett. They just skip over the first 5-6 years of Brackett’s scouting career because there wasn’t anything to rave about. Then from 2014 onwards they give him all the credit. I do think Brackett has been a big part of the Canucks drafting success, I just think people are going way too far with the credit their giving him.
  15. So if Benning was the AGM and in charge of scouting, then why are you giving Brackett all the credit for the Canucks drafts? Reports are saying that Brackett wanted full autonomy over scouting if he was going to stay (I'm assuming leaving at this point), meaning someone else Benning/Weisbrod is currently in charge of scouting. So why in this case won't you give Benning credit, it's because that doesn't suit your narrative. You see, your post is the perfect example of trying to do anything to discredit Jim Benning and it's probably cause you just don't like him as our GM.
×
×
  • Create New...