Highstickin
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Highstickin
-
-
I like it, especially if there is belief Danielson will slide to 15 and we can pick up a RHD through the trade to ease the pressure of drafting a d-man high this year.
For the same reason would you have interest in:
To Calgary: 11OA, Garland
To Van: 16OA, Rasmus Andersson
It's going down one more spot but is Andersson worth it? I wonder if Calgary would bite considering they have several forwards already saying they aren't resigning. This gives them a solid middle 6 winger with term.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, eeeeergh said:
good plans overall but schenn is honestly too slow, and too old, i dont think it makes sense to bring him back
also a bit of an overpayment for soucy
would like to see us weaponize the cap space to get a real top-4 D from a cap strapped team (Carlo from Boston) and instead of Nemeth let Wolanin be on the bottom pair for league minimum, hes more than capable
Carlo would be a great add but I don't think Boston is willing to give him up even with their cap situation. I also think it would come at a pretty good price to acquire him. Regardless of Boston's cap issues, it's the market that sets his price not the team he is with.
Teams can try to take advantage of the Canucks cap situation because the players we are willing to move are all mid-late 20s wingers that are under performing their contracts. The market for those players in the NHL is not good, they are not in high demand, so teams can demand lower prices/sweeteners for them. In terms of Carlo, teams will be lining up to take on a big body RHD that is on a decent contract. If the Vegas cup win says anything about how to build a D core, every team will be looking for size and skating ability. On top of that, Carlo has a 10 team no trade and I am willing to bet Van is on that list.
-
12 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Grab players that are good or decent, but have contracts ending this season from teams that NEED to move cap. For example, the Bruins. Debrusk is a great example. Take Debrusk who can still play meaningful minutes, but have Boston add a sweetener. Flip Debrusk at the TDL for assets that can then be flipped for positional need.
Boston might be in a tight spot with their cap but that is exactly why they are going to need all the prospects on ELCs they can get. So what sweetener are you expecting from them? Their 2023 3rd? 2023 4th? 2024 4th? That's all they have left and if filling cap space with a player we don't need only nets us a 3rd or 4th round pick I pass.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Take note for those that feel Ethan Bear should get over $2M+.
Yes, different positions, but Monahan is probably a middle 6 forward, and Bear is a bottom tier defenceman. Similar values IMO.
There's just not enough cap to go around right now, which means the Canucks REALLY should be weaponizing their cap space and not burning it on a UFA.
Agree that we need to be careful about overvaluing Bear in contract negotiations but the Monahan contract is so far from a comparable for him it's really not relevant.
Can we also stop with the weaponizing cap space! The canucks buy out OEL to get some cap breathing room and suddenly people want us to fill it back up with crap contracts just to get some measly 3rd round picks. MOVE ON. This team does not need to load up on 3rd round picks or even 2nd round picks when our core is getting closer to their prime ages. What team "weaponized" their cap space recently and had success with it? None, if you do that your just entering a long and painful rebuild that may or may not work out.
I understand your concern over spending in free agency and I will agree that we cannot keep overpaying players and hoping they play up to that contract but look around at successful teams. The Stanley Cup champs this year alone had only 1 player they actually drafted and 8 players that were signed during FA who played a role in their run. There are a lot of ways to build a successful team but when a teams core is nearing its prime and you have limited cap space, you don't take on poor contracts to get marginal returns.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Probably just mailing it in so he doesn't get picked by the Habs ... or really any other team in the top 10. Jokes aside, which team in the top 10 picks would you want to play for right now? Detroit maybe?
Nobody in the top 3 are going to select him for sure, San Jose is likely in for a long rebuild, nobody wants to play in Arizona, Philliy is a disaster, Washington is on the backside of a cliff in terms of age and performance, so that leaves St. Louis or Detroit.
-
5
-
Just now, VegasCanuck said:
Fixed.... the challenge of posting when someone's talking to you
Figured so, but couldn't pass up the opportunity
.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:
As a note, I might consider OEL straight up for Kuznetsov straight up for OEL and the buyout Kuznetsov, but I really doubt that OEL will waive to go anywhere.
Our only options with OEL are:
#1. Hope that he finds his game again next season
#2. Retain 3 million and hope he agrees to waive to move somewhere else (yes I think he's tradeable at 4.1 - 4.5 million cap hit)
#3. Buy him out and live with it.
Wait .... do we somehow still have OEL and have to buyout Kuz? And here people thought Benning made questionable decisions; cap management!
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:
if all of those are happening then OEL's cap would be irrelevant at 7.26. i still fail to see how adding 11mil cap in year 2 and year 3 makes it any better. so instead of having the ability to add a 4mil player in year 2/3 or do nothing i we are already at the cap we are going to have to move out a 4mil player during what's left of miller at his highest production?? and only have to deal with 1 more year of OEL's cap but let's just eat OEL's cap for 8 years while only benefitting the team in year 1 aka this coming season when we are least likely to be relevant.. suffer in year 2 and 3.. and then his cap hit for another 5 years instead of 1.. 0 logic 0 sense.
Agree with you here. The highest cap hit on an OEL buy out is years 3 & 4, which should be the years the canucks are targeting to be the most competitive. In those two years the buy out hit is 4.7M which leaves just 2.5M left to replace OEL if we want to maintain the same overall cap hit for the 2nd pair LD. The question then is who will you get for 2.5M that plays at the same level as OEL? Lot's of people like to crap on OEL for the year he just had but I think thats a very shortsighted view of what he brings. In the end I don't see us being able to replace him for 2.5M.
If the argument was that the Canucks are competitive right now and could use the low cap hit for the next two seasons to bring in a last piece to make a contender, I might be inclined to buy him out. The reality, as you pointed out, is that the next two seasons are not contender seasons so why rush it?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, HighOnHockey said:
This was an interesting idea. Well argued for why Columbus might do it. I doubt it would actually happen, but I guess you never know. Depends in part on if Columbus thinks there will be someone there they like at 11. Maybe they expect Michkov will fall that far. They get Miller and their number two ranked guy and call it a day. I still think it's worth it for Vancouver to offload Miller's contract and get a sure chance at one of Carlsson or Fantilli.
It's possible the trade waits until the 11OA pick to be completed. If CLB likes a player still on the board they swap who ever they picked at 3 (assuming it's Carlsson or Fantilli) for 11 and Miller. That way they are not guessing at who they could have. If their list of players with enough value at 11 is empty they don't accept the trade and we pick at 11. In this case I think CLB holds all the leverage and VAN would have to accept those terms. Miller isn't the only piece they could get if they wanted to move 3OA.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Ballisticsports. said:
Dubas wanted more say in TO. I wouldn't be surprised to see him do both jobs until he found a GM that was a yes man to what he wanted
Jason Spezza?
-
5 minutes ago, IBatch said:
Well well well. Turns out his early mistakes just couldn't be corrected. TO is probably one of the easiest franchises to run. More than 50% of the good old Canadian boys want to have a go at some point, and despite Spezza, Thornton and a bunch of other guys playing their for peanuts so Tavares, Mathews et all could get their massive pay cheques it just didn't work out for them. Dubas was a huge part of the reason for some salary escalation back then, and for sure won't shed a tear on his way out. Get that it's a fishbowl market over there, and that part can't be easy, and like JB covid and cap not going up screwed him (same as 53% taxes - instead of 36.4%!! - just like us, OTT and MTL). ... And he did try for sure. Just like Chakya, it's not all about analytics though either, and unlike Chakya he had the pick of the litter 6 playoffs. Wonder who they get in next.
Im also glad because this should make the players nervous too. Same with Keefe because i'm sure Dubas brought in the players he asked for as well. Mathews said he wants another deal ... wonder if that has anything to do with it. Maybe Dubas wasn't so keen on that, after doing his arithmetic.
Agree with some of your points here but I disagree that TO is one of the easiest franchises to run. I think there are a number of players in the league that actively stay out of TO because of the attention. There are a lots of managers south of the board that get far less scrutiny for having stretches of poor performance. I think it would be a lot easier to run teams in cities no one cares about.
-
26 minutes ago, Bounce000 said:
I agree. The way he did gymnastics around the salary cap and always brought in the right complimentary players to support the core will have teams wanting to pick him up. Too bad the core players get jelly knees when the playoff roll around.
He wouldn't have had to do Gymnastics if he would have signed players to contracts they had actually earned rather than contracts he hoped they would earn.
I also don't think he brought the right complementary pieces at all. He did not fix the defensive issues with the team and the leader he brought in and paid $11M per season only had 1 more playoff series win in his career than the leafs. There was talk about the canucks having a country club atmosphere prior to the Bo trade, well your looking at another team whose culture is very much a country club and that falls on the GM.
-
2 hours ago, iinatcc said:
I wonder if this changes the conversation on signing Goalies long term. It was quite recently where the narrative was that it's better not to spend too much on a goalie since their performance fluctuates each seasons and teams don't even need very good goaltending to make a deep playoff run (Avs and Oilers last season and even now Vegas doesn't exactly have a superstar goalie).
Bobrovsky has been average his time with the Panthers. I mean not bad but definitely not the performance expected given his contract. But there's no doubt this playoffs he's made a difference (the Boston series started to turn around when he came back, 3 out 4 wins against the Leafs were 1 goal games, and now this game 1 performance againts the Canes).
If the Panthers win the cup, could we see a return to an era where teams are willing to pay a arm and a leg to sign or trade for a goalie? I can see Agents, using Bobrovsky's case, that sure his goalie client can be average most of the 7 or 8 year term but what if there are those 1 or 2 odds years or even playoff runs where he's capable of getting hot?
Perhaps teams will now be willing to sign players to Bobrovsky or Vasilevskiy type deals moving forward.
You would also hope Bob's play is serving as a reminder that players can find their way out of a rough patch and play back up to their contracts. Maybe he hasn't been great for the past season and a half but they are getting every dollar out of that contract right now. We don't know what he may have been dealing with over that rough stretch; physically or mentally but he is showing he is still capable.
Lots of people like to pile on OEL right now but if a 34 yr old goalie in Florida can get back to form who says a 32 yr old defenseman can't next season?
-
8 minutes ago, hammertime said:
I agree. I think you're making a great point here. You absolutely can have success in the playoffs with small skilled players. The key is most successful teams only have a few. Like a Pete, Hughes, Kuzmenko boom done! Then you surround them with monsters. As much as I'm a huge Hoglander, Garland fan. When we look at our top 6 scorers
Kuzz Pete Beau
Garland Miller Brock
We have 1 player who could win a physical battle down low.
We won't have success in the PO's built like that.
I think each of Beau Garland Brock should be able to return roughly a 2nd rnd pick. There's approx 15m cap there. If I'm gm I move all 3 at the draft. Shop for a 3C and a shut down D or 2 maybe one or several of them ends up part of those deals.
If Alvin is successful in accomplishing this sort of re configure I'll throw my full support behind him drafting all the Lekkerimakis he wants.
Agree on this.
@eeeeergh my point may have been lost in my wording a bit. I was not saying players sub 6' and 190 have no place in the game but with the current construction of the canucks, we cannot keep acquiring small, fast players. We have an abundance of players that fall into the category of small or fast or just simply not physical. Not many on the roster have all those characteristics but the reality is we lack players with size that play at their size.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, eeeeergh said:
I really hope someone takes Dvorsky before us. Imagine squandering one of the most elite drafts in recent history to make a "safe" pick
My opinion is smaller guys are the really mispriced commodity. The NHL is getting smaller, faster, more skilled. A guy like Benson is an elite talent who gets punished because hes short. Look at so many of the huge steals in recent history - DeBrincat, Caufield, Point, etc. all small guys with elite talent who got passed over because "muhhh small".
And where are the three players you just mentioned right now? Not playing in the playoffs.
Only 3 of the current top 20 scorers in the playoffs are under 6' and 190lbs. I won't disagree that smaller, faster players are finding success in the regular season but come playoff time it take a very special undersized player to have success. Most are not able to handle the physicality of the playoffs as well as the bigger, stronger players.
I don't want the canucks to build a regular season team, I want a team built to compete when it matters.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Ok... I thought about it... we can do this!
We have 99,397 members on here. If we all chip in $15,091, we'd have the $1,500,000,000 we need!
Alternatively, if we just get the active 5,563 members to chip in $269,638.68, we can also hit the $1,500,000,000!
WHAT SAY YOU!?!
Based on the Proposal threads I see, I'm not so sure the CDC crew owning the team would yield much different results than we have now.
-
1
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, Sapper said:
This is more on the coach. The player didn't invoke a religious request for refusal - they used a family choice
Any other job in the province if an employee refused to wear the uniform provided during aid hours ( absent a human rights reason such as religion ) they would be at best suspended at worst fired
If the coach had any control on his players he would have sat him for the game
People are free to speak their mind not freedom from.consiquences
This decision absent of a religious reason does impact the company ..... They can't believe in diverty and inclusion when employees can just say pass ... Absent of course bona fide reasons
Just my thoughts .... Love the nucks but lost alot of respect for a few in the organization over this ..... Seems it would have been better just to have him as a healthly scratch tonight
And simply forcing players to wear the symbol does nothing to change the culture or inclusiveness within hockey. If teams were to take a hard line on these theme night games i.e say either you wear the jersey or you will be scratched, it does nothing to actually change players minds on accepting people for who they are. It just gives players the ability to sit out a game and avoid dealing with their decisions.
Why not just let them wear a different jersey than the rest of the team for warm ups? Those that choose not to wear the jersey stand out from the rest and it becomes very clear how much of an inclusiveness problem hockey really has. Don't cover up the problem by forcing people to wear the symbol, find out the extent of the issue by allowing them to choose.
-
5 minutes ago, RakuRaku said:
So... any trades past the TDL is AHL-eligible only right?? what about waiver claims?
Correct. Players who move teams (for any reason i.e. Trade, Waivers or contract signing) after the TDL are not eligible to NHL play regular season or playoff games for the remainder of that season.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 73 Percent said:
So for the buyout I fear that there will be a year of like 6mill in dead cap. Preventing us to re sign a core player. At this point if we can find a guy to play 3ld for league minimum (like wolianen) I say we staple OEL to the press box as a 7d for the remainder of his contract or he retires.
We can even expedite that process if we send him to Abby and get 1m cap relief to offset the cost of wolianen.
We gave up a first to get this plug. I'm not willing to give up another one to ship him out so he can ride into the sunset. He needs to be held accountable.
I think OELs No Movement Clause will prevent us from sending him down. I can't see him agreeing to that.
-
9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
I can pull a timeline.
It started with the twins. Benning wanted to get younger. Brought in a number of players. Then Benning wanted veteran presences. Didn't work. Managed to draft a few gems in Hoglander, Podkolzin, Boeser, Petey and Demko. Wanted to insulate them. Brought in some vets. Didn't work out. New management. Doing the same thing. Wanting to get younger.
Theres a whole history of trades and signings to fall back on that can be used as a comparison.
The one thing that HAS not been done is to actual invest in a couple of drafts and build the prospect pool and foundation.
Since the twins left, what core has management built around in Van?
You say they are doing the same thing "wanting to get younger". I don't see it that way. I don't see this as just getting younger, they have a very specific target for age and position to build around specific players we already have. IMO this is different from what management did in the past.
-
1 minute ago, Warhippy said:
The plan we have now is the exact same plan we've had since Benning first arrived.
I disagree. The previous plan appeared to be insolate the young, incoming core with vets (Beagle, Rous, Schenn, etc.) so they can learn and develop. Were bad decisions made, absolutely. I am certainly not a support of many moves Benning made but that is what I see. The plan now is not insolate that young core but build around it. This team did not get older over this deadline, they are getting pieces that fit with the players we have now. Value your picks all you want, but a low first high second round pick this year does nothing for our core.
-
4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
I won't get in to the rumours. over the past 12 days we've had our fill and then some. but if there is any validity to the rumours that Ruthervin turned down picks because they wanted a center when Pitts has literally none roster ready that fit the bill outside of Poehling (maybe Hallander) than this is criminal stupidity. We are over the cap. We have zero cap space to start next season. A trade HAS to be made. We have zero space until the end of next season, than magically we have $33 million in space but have 10 RFA's in the next 2 seasons needing new contracts. 7 UFAs that need to be replaced or given new contracts.
Rumours are what they are but man...I just don't see how spending to the cap to be finishing with a top 10 pick for almost a decade and STILL be picking top 10 is considered viable smart or successful enough to be doing the EXACT same thing the next season and hoping for better results.
But making a trade just to trade will not get us out of this limbo we are in now. For years fans have been begging for a plan and now that we have evidence of one we are upset they turned down an offer? If we trade Miller for only picks, it doesn't help our core without a subsequent move. If management doesn't feel they can move those picks for the players they want now than whats the point of making the trade?
I'm sure the management team is well aware of the cap issues we are in but they clearly value Miller more than the cap space. Substitute Miller for maybe Boeser or Garland and maybe they accept a picks only trade but Miller is difficult to replace at this point.
-
2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
OK but again, we're competing all of a sudden with the roster we have now? It's effectively the same core roster we've had roughly for the last 5 years. Subtracting of course Horvat and soon to be Myers. Replacing them with Beauvillier and Hronek.
What exactly about that says "we're winning" when it hasn't happened before?
Just because a team is not successful yet doesn't mean you need to change over the entire roster. Changes need to be made for sure, but it would be shortsighted if you said it hasn't worked for 5 years so move everyone involved.
It starts with a change at leadership. If the team is not performing you have to change the voice in the room. I'm not in that dressing room so I can't tell you if Bo was a good captain or not but clearly the team was not responding to what Bo was doing or the coaches were doing. Start there, and give the other guys a chance to step up and lead this team their way.
I have been part of teams before, albeit not NHL teams, that were middle of the pack but not great one season to national champs the next year once the player leadership group changed over.
-
2
-
-
Out - Horvat (27), Schenn (33), Stillman (24), Lockwood (24), 7th round in 26, 2nd in 23
In - Hronek (25), Bloom (19), Kravtsov (23), Beauv (25), Raty (20), 3rd in 23, 4th in 23
Please explain to me how the above gives you any indication that the owner/management has traded off our future? People are loosing their minds over the NYIs 1st and yes it was exciting to think what that player could be but the reality is, it didn't fit with the current superstar we have in Pettersson. Besides that, what did we hope for in that NYIs 1st? A top 4 RHD? Well, we got one without even having to roll the dice.
Keep your playoff money if you like, but this team didn't trade away our future (yet, if we trade the Canucks 2023 1st than I'm with you).
-
3
-
1
-
Canucks’ Rick Tocchet on what he wants to see from Vasily Podkolzin and Nils Höglander next season
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Making the statement "you can teach defence, you can't teach scoring" is simply a lie. I agree that offense is not easy to learn but playing solid defense takes commitment, the IQ to read plays and the heart to play physical/punishing hockey. There are a lot of players now that are not willing to put in the effort in the D-zone because a) all they want are stats on a sheet of paper & b) they don't want to get their hands dirty.
Your entire argument here can be neutralized by looking at who won the cup this year. Guess what, Vegas didn't give a crap how many points each player got they only cared about winning. You say top 6 guys are not here to shut down opposing players, well Vegas' top 6 does and they are contenders year over year because of it. You can value all your regular season goals, assist and points you want but when games matter the most defense wins (and this includes players in your top 6).