Highstickin
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Highstickin
-
-
On 2/3/2023 at 11:29 AM, 24K PureCool said:
We could start buy forbidding signing bonuses that are not buyout prove or restricted to like league minimum.
What I really want to see is a minimal performance clause that allows teams to terminate contract if a player significantly underperforms relative to when they signed their contract on a sliding scale to account for aging.
Would you then consider allowing performance bonuses for all players throughout their careers? The bonuses would count towards the cap and reward players that are significantly overperforming on their contracts.
You can't put forward a proposal that only benefits the one side (i.e. owners or players) or it would never get through CBA negotiations.
-
45 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said:
I hate how the league is trending. Everyone get paid, Nobody can be moved and most your assets are viewed as "negative" simply because of this trash league.
Quick solution: Give each team 1 buyout that DOES NOT count against the cap in a calendar year.
Buyout structure can somewhat remain the same in terms of the length of it but obviously I would cap it at 2 buyouts max at any given time to prevent the Leafs rangers and Vegas from just swinging on everyone with the intention of buying them out to get out of the cap. Lots of potential greasy loopholes still but at least it would open up some moment around the league and promote giving guys another opportunity elsewhere as well.
Thoughts?
Why give trash management and their poor decision making an easy way out? You said everyone is getting paid but who is putting the money in front of the players. GMs and management teams are in place to ensure they can build a competitive roster within the confines of a cost certainty structure. Sometimes they make risky decisions that don't work out. What do those teams/GMs learn if you give them an easy way out that does not impact the team performance?
I think the hard cap actually helps to correct the exact problem you are outlining. Teams find out quickly that giving long term, high dollar contracts can lead to huge problems down the road if given to the wrong players or is not balanced throughout the line up. In fact we see evidence of this in the league right now. Not a single player on a $10M+ contract has wont he cup, why? Is this not something management all around the league should be looking at?
-
20 minutes ago, Drakrami said:
Management has stated we are going for retool not rebuild... Why would they trade away our only NHL calibre goalie....? Literally first player JR praises coming on board is Demko. So what is with all these Demko proposals lol...?
I would argue this propsal is actually a retool proposal that happens to include Demko, unlike some others that are rebuild proposals including Demko.
In return for moving Demko we clear cap space (rid ourselves of OEL contract), which is also one of managements priorities, we bring in a vet goalie (Bob), we acquire a young center and a 1st round pick.
This isn't moving Demko for 2 1st and a second or a prospect and a 1st, this is an NHL goalie, a young C currently in the NHL plus a pick. I see that package as retool not rebuild.
-
13 minutes ago, Sell.the.team said:
I do and we will see if other comparable players get considerably more return. I've seen some pretty big deadline packages.
The fact that Bo wasn't permitted to talk extensions with other teams also likely limited his market.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the Islanders flipped him for a higher return if their posteason fortunes don't improve and he isn't open to resigning.
If the Islanders do try flipping Bo at the deadline than thats great news for us. Could they get more in return than we did, no! because if the Islanders turn into sellers we most certainly have their lottery pick in 2024. That roster is not built for the long term and if they fail this season, next season does not get better. What could NYI's possibly get thats better than a top prospect, a lottery pick and a roster player (call him a cap dump if you want but he is a serviceable 2-3 line winger).
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:
It is what it is. He's probably not too happy with Bo being traded.
Based on the last 152 pages I would say he's not alone.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sell.the.team said:
I agree with your point 2 namely and myself was worried about this over the last few weeks so I don't necessarily hate pulling the trigger now.
Less concerned about Bo's production falling off a cliff but theres no question he could have gotten hurt and then we'd have gotten nothing.
I'm just skeptical that many teams were really in on him. Apparently the Hurricanes were interested and then balked when the Canucks asked for a certain player in return. Probably the same could be said for other interested parties. Part of me wishes this team had an open and honest policy that Bo was available to the highest bidder and any package would be considered (whether purely picks / prospects / vets / otherwise).
I think we painted ourselves into a corner by demanding to get a young roster player back. It eliminates certain teams from consideration, thereby decreasing the number of teams bidding on the player which naturally drives down demand and lowers the final price. I also think its worth noting AB's $4M contract for next year comes at a fairly substantial opportunity cost.
For years this team has been floating without a clear path forward. Trading for players (OEL), signing free agents (Beagle, Rous) and to a certain degree drafting (or trading of draft picks prior to having a competing roster) have all lead to a team without an identity. I am glad management came out and said we need to get younger and faster, here is what we are looking for and we won't sell without it.
Say the Blues were willing to put ROR out there in a trade for Bo, would you accept it as the canucks? Why would you when it doesn't really fit with the core age or window for competing. If you think this team is going to compete in the next 2 seasons, maybe thats where we should start.
-
3 minutes ago, Sell.the.team said:
I genuinely think we could have done more to get a bidding war going and perhaps gotten more back in terms of pure draft capital.
Yea, maybe a Boston/Carolina/Toronto/Tampa....etc first is not as good as the Islanders 1st... but if we could have got a 1st and 2 2nds from a better team (with no dead cap back), would that not have been arguably better? People gotta remember we could have taken on $4M of dead cap from another team and probably gotten an extra 2nd or 3rd in return.... we had to give up a 2nd just to get rid of Dicikinson....
I grade this trade similar to Benning's trade of Kesler.
The issue I see it that your hoping for a bidding war, it is not a guarantee.
I also think a 13-20th pick this year (or possible lottery next year) is far more valuable than a package including 30th, 60th and a second next year which will likely fall in that same range.
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, DeNiro said:
This trade makes me think back to the draft.
Remember it was reported that a deal was done with the Islanders and that it involved Miller? Gotta wonder if a very similar package was involved in that offer.
Was this just a continuation of those negotiations with Miller swapped out for Horvat?
Im thinking Allvin might have been after Raty for awhile now.
You could be right considering Pitt didn't have a selection in the 2021 draft prior to Raty being selected. Maybe PA thought he would fall a few more picks to them or wasn't willing to pay the price at the time to move up.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:
Nobody is defending Brock's contract as being fair for his production. We are saying he's not garbage like other people are saying, based on his production. There is a distinction. People act like Brock has 12 points and floats around. He plays hard, he forechecks, he's a great team guy. Always has a huge smile when a teammate scores. And he produces at a very solid level. He's not this albatross player that haters make him out to be.
I also don't know why we need to compare Brock to AB before they have even hit the ice. As pointed out in this thread many times, they are completely different players that serve different roles on the team. I say let them play a few games to see how AB adjusts to the new teammates and systems before we assume he maintains his NYI's production.
Who knows, maybe Brock and AB play on a line together and their differences in playing style actually complement each other to the point they both play up to their contracts. I like the fact that we get 5 weeks before the deadline to see how this acquisition works out.
-
1 minute ago, Alflives said:
We got a very good return right now for Bo. If Lou trades Bo at the TDL, because their team falls even further out of the playoffs, it gets even better. That pick goes to next season and the Islanders will be even worse. Say hello to a top five 2024 pick. Thanks Lou!!!
I agree. My first thought was disappointment that the pick was protected up to 12th but after looking at it, I think the Islanders are more likely to fall out of contention than climb into it. I know this draft is deep (and will admit I don't know much about next years), but looking at the current Islanders roster it's hard to see how they will be better next year with 11 players over the age of 30 and only 2 of those on expiring contracts.
I like the 2023 draft but I feel this could easily end up a high 2024 pick, which I would take over a 8-12 pick this year.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, stawns said:
As the tdl gets closer, teams are going to want to clear cap space to load up for a cup run. Teams with cap space can take on bad contracts that come with young prospects or high picks. The same opportunity exists at the draft.
Isn't that what everyone has been clamouring for on here? The Canucks could have been that team, but blew that chance by taking on AB's $4m and retaining on Horvat this year.
All we see on this board, non stop, is people screaming about cap mismanagement and now this group has made a huge fumble on the cap and suddenly everyone is all good with it?
If they have to take cap back, don't do it on an undersized winger who doesnt score.
If we didn't take AB back in this trade we don't get Raty and a 1st. Maybe you get one but not both for a rental Bo. AB is our cap dump to get a 1st.
The other thing to think about it that this 1st will likely be 13-20 overall this year or next. If we don't take NYI cap dump for 13-20 and instead take Boston's or Toronto's where does that 1st end up? 25-32? What is the cost for us to move from 25-32 to 13-20? At recent drafts the cost to move up has been crazy. My take on draft picks in the 1st round; Quality>Quantity. I will take the NYI's cap dump and 1st over pretty much any other contender.
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, stawns said:
Why would offers get worse closer to the deadline? Thats not generally how it works.......the closer you get to the tdl, the more desperate teams get. The more desperate teams get, the more they give up.
Offers get worse closer to the deadline when contending teams trade for players not from the Canucks because our asking price is too high. There are lots of players available this year and holding out to get a larger return could land you without a dance partner come deadline day.
Just look at what happened last year with Miller. We waited and held out for a better return, which never happened, and then we were forced to either sign him to a contract that he will struggle to live up to or lose him on the open market. The exact same scenario could have easily happened with Bo.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, flat land fish said:
Unfortunate for pacioretty but will put Carolina in a position to take on Salary at the trade deadline and they should be motivated buyers.
Agreed, they also have plenty of cap space entering next year to retain anyone they trade for. Hard to say what Pacioretty would be looking for next year if they want to keep him but can't imagine he will get another 7M, and doubt Staal will need 6M again next year given age and production this year.
Maybe they would be interested in a Miller conversation given their situation?
-
1 hour ago, CanucksJay said:
Agreed. I am a hard no on retaining Miller long term. I meant for this expiring contract.if a team didn't have cap space to add him this year but had space opening up next year, it would be a prime opportunity to do this.
As for Boeser I might consider retaining if the assets coming back are good enough because there's only 2 years left on it after this year
Fair, I hadn't really considered Miller's expiring deal. Unfortunately for the canucks I don't think Miller's season so far has many teams lining up to take on his extension.
-
54 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:
Could this be some cap space wiggle room we need to work some deadline magic?
I believe Pearson is just on injured reserve not LTIR. (correct me if I'm wrong)
If we move him to LTIR, could we possibly retain on someone like Miller or Boeser to make it more attractive and take back unwanted salary like a cap dump?
Rumour is that Boeser is currently worth a 2nd. Could this turn into a 2nd and a prospect or even a first?
Even if Pearson on LTIR gives management some room to work, we should not even consider retaining on Miller or Boeser in any trade. If we want to weaponize it on a rental trade (i.e. Bo) or a cap dump coming in that expires at the end of this season than maybe but we cannot carry retained salary for the length of Boeser's contract and certainly not Miller's.
We are about to work ourselves out of dead cap space this season, lets not waste it moving forward.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, D-Money said:
Yeah, he was a really good player until age-related decline started, and he fell hard. Went from legitimate 2nd pairing guy to fringe NHL-er seemingly overnight.
Playing in Edmonton does that to a guy.
-
5 minutes ago, Putgolzin said:
I actually love this point.
Every time I hear people talking about our weak prospect pool or our horrible prospect development - I come back to the consideration that we have super legit young players who would make our prospect depth look stellar if they weren’t already garnering Calder votes.
And they will all continue to get better I believe.
But when that happens we’re still not good enough to compete for the Cup until we get much stronger in certain areas.
Not spit-shine better like I wish, but really, properly better like cutting off our best player as an investment in our future.
It really sucks but I’m afraid it’s the only path.
I was with you up until the bold part, it kinda went off the rails for a minute.
The thing is, it's not a one size fits all statement when it comes to prospects and when the enter the NHL. Should Hughes and Petterson played in the AHL, maybe but I don't think it really would have affected the outcome. Should Hoglander have played in the AHL, yes. Some of our prospects were getting Calder votes but at the end of the day I am far less concerned with our prospects winning Calders and more concerned with our prospects being solid NHLers when they step into the league and developing a consistent game. I think the rush to get prospects to the NHL in the past comes from a gap in succession planning on the roster. When the Sedin's stepped away, Gagne & Vanek were moved all within one season, it forced those prospects into action early.
-
1 minute ago, HKSR said:
Scouting staff? At this rate, the only person that will be sitting at the table on draft day will be Bill Armstrong. It'll just be him in a desk that resembles one that children sit in at Kindergarten class. With nothing but a phone and a lamp for him to read his paper that is a printout of Craig Button's draft rankings.
Wait a minute, a lamp? Where did they find the money for a lamp? ... or did they borrow it from the ASU library?
-
1
-
-
I think there is about a zero percent chance Montreal moves the pick with the draft at home but lets have some fun with it.
Arizona, who is desperate to show everyone they are in fact an NHL team and better than the college team they are about to share a rink with, makes a massive deal.
To Arizona:
1 OA - Pick Shane Wright
To Montreal
3OA - Juraj Slafkovsky
Carolina's 2022 1st
Jakob Chychrun
Feeling a financial pinch, Arizona reduces their scouting staff to 1 person and simply reads the central scouting report and drafts accordingly. Their single scout realized Wright was an exceptional status player (reviews list of other exceptional status players) and determines he will be the best player in the NHL.
Years later, Wright is hampered by the development system used by the yotes and is clearly outplayed by Slafkovsky and whoever Montreal picks with the Carolina pick. Montreal then trades for Wright in 2026, sending what's left of Brendan Gallagher to the desert as a retirement gift.
Typical Arizona!
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Phil_314 said:
(Not saying yours in particular), deals like this are classic CDC, that's around $12 mil before re-signing Miller; Fox/ Trouba/ Myers must be the most expensive RHD corps in the league ($9.5 Fox, $8 Trouba, $6 Myers). Then there's re-signing Kakko, Copp, replacing Strome... from the looks of it Miller alone looks tough to sell to the Rangers.
Totally agree, the rags currently have 7.3 mil in cap space to start the off season needing to sign 2/3 of their second line, 3 of their bottom 6 and a back up goalie. Then on top of that we are trying to trade them a player making 5.25 mil and an RFA that will likely get close to 1 mil contract while taking back two ELCs.
The rags are currently being humbled by the pens in the first round and if they do finish them off, what makes us think they would be interested in boosting their offense at the expense of good young defensemen? They have given up 7 goals in both of their last two games, doesn't really sound like an offense problem to me.
-
33 minutes ago, King Loui said:
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. 7.26 million for 30 points very much is a problem
That is a fairly heavy oversimplification of a player and contract. I think 7.26 mill is high for what we received from OEL this season but to just state a defensemen is worth his contract or not by $/point is shortsighted. With this thinking will we end up going full Coilers and only value offensive players that produce high $/points ratios while having infinite number of defensive liabilities?
I think the tough part for skilled defensive players is that the stats are not as simple to measure and quantify so how do we know if we are over or under paying them based on their skills. If we over value offensive play we run the risk of relying even heavier on Demko, however if we over value perceived defensive skills (such as Dickinson) we could overpay for a player that is not really brining much value as either end of the ice.
The canucks were 8th in the league in goals against, some things defensively were going right for that to happen. Yes we have Demko, but there were some good things happening in front of him too.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, HKSR said:
By the time St Louis tears it down, Parayko won't be the Parayko we know now.
Trouba is not going anywhere while NYR is competitive. Schneider we know all about, and Lundkvist is not the answer for our top pair next to Hughes.
I wanted Murphy, but the Hawks just re-signed him, so he's not going anywhere any time soon.
Pesce is Carolina's top RHD, so he definitely won't be moved. Deangelo maybe... but again, not the right kind of guy we need for Hughes.
Anyways, you see the predicament now. It's really, really, really difficult to find a top pairing RHD. I'd bank on the UFA route a lot more than trying to find one in trade. Any team that has two Top 4 RHD are simply not gonna move them unless severely overpaid to do so.
We will have to agree to disagree on this I think. I wasn't suggesting going after Schneider, Lundkvist or Deangelo, those are the guys I see stepping up for their respective teams to free up the guys I mentioned targeting.
Vancouver has a bad history of signing free agents to try and plug holes, just to later look for places to dump said players (look at Meyers). I understand it is a new management group but if we look at the Pittsburg team that this group had a large hand in creating, not a single key asset to that team was signed out of free agency. Any top pair guys that make it to free agency are looking for a massive pay raise or a long term contract near the end of their careers. Neither of which Vancouver can afford at this point.
At the end of the day neither road is easy, I just don't like trying to fill a top pair spot when a game of chance is involved. We can like a guy all we want in free agency, that doesn't mean he has any interest in signing here. I have seen this team try to fill key roles in free agency before but when the time comes we don't land the big fish and instead we try to force someone into a role they were never going to fill.
-
1 hour ago, HKSR said:
Pulock is locked in until 2029-30 and is only 27 entering his prime. Pretty sure he's in their long term plans to be Top 4 RHD with Dobson for the foreseeable future.
I think Mayfield is the guy on his way out. However, he's 29 and will be a UFA after next year. Surely Boeser is not the guy we'd trade to acquire him.
Anybody else you got your eye on?
There are some that would be awesome pieces to get but well outside our reach. If St. Louis was ever to tear it down, Colton Parayko would be outstanding and at a great AAV.
If it weren't for his 8 mil cap hit, I would look at Jacob Trouba with the Rangers. They have Adam Fox playing top pair, Braden Schnieder is coming up and Nils Lundkvist could slot into the third pair soon. The problem is that I doubt NY wants to keep any of the cap hit on Trouba and I don't know that he is still worth the 8 mil. Maybe he is.
If Chicago decided to go full rebuild, like they have said they are, a guy like Connor Murphy might be a good fit. Nothing overly flashy about his game but he is a big body that has been playing big minutes for the hawks. Numbers aren't great but neither are the hawks or the yotes when he was with them prior. Health is a concern here with his recent concussion.
Depending on how bad Carolina wants to keep their forward group together (they have 4 UFAs and 2 RFAs) and how much they like Anthony Deangelo (who is also a RFA) maybe they would be willing to move on from Brett Pesce. Under contract for another 2 yrs at just over 4 mil would certainly help out our cap situation and possibly keep our forward group together.
-
2 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Ok let me turn this around, who do you have your eyes on that can help that top pairing and play next to Hughes? And how do you want us to acquire him?
It's tough to know exactly what teams are willing to part with and what they want in return but I would be call the Islanders and getting the price on Ryan Pulock.
NYI have Mayfield under contract yet as a second pair guy and will need to pay Dobson this offseason. I have to believe Dobson will be the top pair RHD going forward which means Pulock might be available. That being said he does have a new contract starting next season which indicates Lou is planning to keep him long term. His new contract has a NTC in it and I'm not sure when that kicks in but if they are at all interested, now would be the time to find out. For a price, the Islanders need some scoring ability and likely someone to replace some of Pulock's minutes so a package centered around Poolman and Boeser is where I would start. Maybe it ends up somewhere around:
Van:
- Boeser
- Poolman
NYI:
- Pulock
- 2022 2nd
[Proposal] Van - Pitt Including Miller
in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Posted
Van:
- Miller ($2,000,000 retained on remainder of current deal)
- Schenn
Pitt:
- Kapanen
- Pickering
- 2023 1st
- 2024 2nd
Pitt has the cap space next year to deal with Miller's new contract and he fits their age window to compete with Sid and Malkin. Schenn helps with a playoff push this year and plays the way Burke likes.
The retention is for the current contract only and helps the Pens make further moves at the deadline, this is offset by the 2024 2nd. The $2M essentially makes the money in/out equal.
Maybe there needs to be some pieces added to balance this out a bit, but might be a start for us to move the Miller contract.