-
Posts
3,904 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Patel Bure
-
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
I think this could definitely be a good short term solution (although I’m interested to see what your suggestions aware in terms of reducing cap space), but what would you if Podkzolin comes into the team and starts killing it (ie plays like an elite winger right from the get go). Who would go then? -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
With Tryamkin committee to one more year in the KHL, I think it’s highly unlikely that we walk from Tanev now. Edler-Stecher Hughes-Myers Benn-Rafferty Would be quite mediocre in my opinion and would be downright pitiful with the inevitable injuries. -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
For whatever it’s worth, I think Benning will try and keep both Toffoli and Boeser. I have a sneaking suspicion that Virtanen will be the one to be moved, with Lind being his replacement. The Canucks will then see how Podkzolin and Hoglander pan out, and what vets they can replace up front. -
1) Never go into a relationship wanting to change someone. 2) Let your girlfriend know that you think she's beautiful and you're not just saying that because you are with her. Give her indirect advice such as, "the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting the same result, and that sometimes to progress, we need to try different things to get different results." All the best!
-
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
I like your ideas a lot. Toffoli and Podkolzin on the Canucks’ right side should be pretty formidable, while Boeser and Virtanen can eventually be used to free up cap space while addressing our needs on defense. -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
One of the reasons why I’m open to trading the Boeser’s, Virtanen’s, and Podkolzin’s, is to see what kind of return we’d get on those guys while shoring up areas in which we need help in (ie good defensive prospects on our right side D). Edler-Stecher Hughes-Tanev Benn-Myers Is decent for now, but the need to replace Edler one day (top pairing situations dman) is a very tall order. Tanev is also leaving his prime years as well. So it’s not just about “having the best RW’ers on our team as possible,” but rather, taking a short and long term wholistic view of the team into consideration. I personally don’t feel comfortable letting Toffoli walk away for nothing after having given up an arm and a leg to get him. Given Toffoli’s age, I think he can be signed to a pretty decent long term AAV as well. I would love to keep Boeser and Podkolzin as well, but we simply can’t ignore the type of returns that those guys would fetch, along with the fact that rolling with Toffoli and Virtanen as your top 6 RW *might* not be the worst thing in the world (especially if Virtanen can be signed long term to a cost effective AAV and performs consistently as a 2nd line winger). -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
I’d love for your scenario to play out, but where would the money come from? Would we let Tanev walk? (Tryamkin signed a one year deal in the KHL by the way). Bye bye Markstrom? Something would have to give cap wise. -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
In terms of your last question (where is the money coming from?), I think the Canucks have some kind of plan in place with regards to Loui Eriksson. Here’s what I’m thinking: 1) Eriksson will either be packaged with a sweetener (young player) to Ottawa or Detroit (I’m thinking Demko). 2) The Canucks and Eriksson already came to an “under the table” agreement where Eriksson would retire at the end of this season (31 of 36 million will have already been paid to Eriksson), under the condition that Eriksson wouldn’t be sent to the minors this season. Complete theory on my part, but I suspect that this was why he was never sent down. I also suspect that this was why Benning felt comfortable signing both Ferland and Myers. -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies
Patel Bure replied to Patel Bure's topic in Canucks Talk
I hear what you’re saying but trust me when I say that my post wasn’t intended to be some kind of passive aggressive swipe against Boeser. I would love to keep Boeser as I’m sure Benning would as well, but we also have to be cognizant of the future cap. What type of salary would Boeser command once he hits UFA? (assuming that he starts performing like he did two seasons ago). Will the Canucks really let Toffoli walk away after having given up so much to acquire him? Can Virtanen be signed to a long term cost effective deal and become a good 2nd line winger? What type of return could Boeser get in a trade? What about Virtanen? Those are the things that Benning needs to think about when assessing short term and long term plans. I would even consider the following: (although I’d have to give it some thought). xxx-xxx-Toffoli xxx-xxx-Boeser xxx-xxx-Leivo xxx-xxx-MacEwen Virtanen gets moved for a low 1st to clear cap, while Podkolzin is moved for an elite defensive prospect. Guys like Lind and Tryamkin can be used as sweeteners to move some bad contracts such as Sutter, Baertschi, etc. The young “stud” defensive prospect that we trade Podkolzin for could then replace Edler one day as our top pairing “all situations” defenseman. -
The Canucks’ depth on RW and long term implications and strategies: I think it goes without saying that our organizational depth on RW just might be our biggest strength from a short term and long term perspective (although perhaps a case can be made for our goaltending, center, and LW positions but I digress). Here is what our depth on RW looks like: -Toffoli -Boeser -Virtanen -Leivo -Eriksson -MacEwen -Podkolzin -Lind -Jasek -Lockwood I would argue that the Canucks are in a position where they could use their strength and depth on RW to fill holes in weaker areas such as prospects on right side defense, draft picks, or whatever they choose. It would obviously involving a balancing act between.... 1) Short term and long term cap ramifications. 2) Quality of depth on RW 3) How much each individual RW’er on our team would fetch us in a trade to round out weaker areas in our organization. For example, having...... xxx-xxx-Toffoli xxx-xxx-Boeser xxx-xxx-Podkolzin xxx-xxx-Virtanen Would give us tremendous depth on RW, but it would likely give us future cap problems. Furthermore, we would likely still have holes in other areas of our team and so having such an overwhelming strength on RW would be unnecessary (especially when you consider the fact that Virtanen and Podkolzin would deserve to play higher up in the line-up in an ideal setting). On the flip side, if you went with.... xxx-xxx-Podkolzin xxx-xxx-Virtanen xxx-xxx-Lind or Leivo xxx-xxx-MacEwen or Lind It likely means that the Canucks walked away from Toffoli to save cap, while trading Boeser to shore up other areas on the team (ie defense, etc.). However, I think most would agree that going with this kind of depth on RW would be very risky. We still don’t know what we have in Podkolzin, and Virtanen’s inconsistency could make him a misfit in a top 6 role. Moving Podkolzin and Boeser would likely net us fantastic returns in terms of shoring up other areas on our team, but would you be comfortable with...... xxx-xxx-Toffoli xxx-xxx-Virtanen xxx-xxx-Lind or Leivo xxx-xxx-MacEwen or Lind So my questions are as follows: 1) How would you organize our depth on RW? What players would be moved or unsigned? Why? 2) If you choose to move a certain player on our RW to shore up other areas in our organization, what kind of return would you expect? In answering my own question, I *might* be inclined to go with my Podkolzin and Boeser idea from above, but I don’t think I’d be that aggressive. I’d probably attempt to go with Toffoli, Boeser, Leivo, and MacEwen and see what type of returns I could get with Virtanen (low 1st?) and Podkolzin (exceptional defensive prospect?) but I honestly have no idea.
-
Proposal - Edit: Matt Sekeres is bad at headlines
Patel Bure replied to Moose Nuckle's topic in Canucks Talk
Sekeres, Drance, and pretty much anyone at CanucksArmy and The Athletic should be torched. Ive always said that JD Burke was a menace and a toxic presence to Canucks hockey. He definitely needs to go. -
(Proposal) Boeser Roussel and Rafferty to Dallas
Patel Bure replied to Maddogy's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Stars aren’t moving Heiskanen. -
That second deal is very nonsensical in my opinion, given where the Canucks are trending as a team. Ottawa would pass on that first deal. If the Canucks are looking to move Sutter, they *might* get a willing buyer at 50% retention.
-
I hope Matt Sekeres, Thomas Drance, Dhaliwal, or whoever reported what appears to be a very false rumor has his licensed revoked.
-
My only problem with Severson is that he’s not really an elite dman, nor does he have that ceiling. Ultimately, that return for Brock would be fairly underwhelming. On top of that, adding on Severson’s cap would likely prevent us from going out there and going hard after a REALLY elite dman like Pietrangelo. I would much rather recoup our first and good prospect lost in the Miller and Toffoli deals, and then use that freed up cap space to truly go after a big fish on D via cap space (ideally, a right sided dman that could anchor a top pairing with Hughes). The presence of said guy. Ours then allow us to potentially move on from Tanev, and also move on from Edler a year later.
-
(Proposal) Boeser to Ottawa for Tkachuk
Patel Bure replied to Maddogy's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Ottawa laughs and hangs up the phone. -
I would much rather see the Canucks move Boeser for a 1st round pick + good prospect so that they can.... 1) Clear cap space 2) Recoup the 1st lost in the Miller deal. 3) Recoup the good prospect that they lost in the Toffoli deal. On top of all this, I would *only* trade Brock if the Canucks were able to sign both Toffoli and Markstrom, which left us with not enough cap room.
-
I fully agree that the Canucks, if fully healthy, are a legitimate dark horse. The last time the Canucks had a fully healthy line-up, we destroyed Boston 9-3. It will be interesting to see how the Canucks do with their number one goalie back, along with Horvat finally getting a solid RW’er in the form of Boeser or Toffoli. That 3rd line with Virtanen and Rousell should be solid as well, along with Beagle finally being used in a role that is compatible with his game (4th line). If the Canucks can stay relatively healthy, I can definitely see them not only getting into the playoffs, but causing a 1st round upset.
-
My thing with Jovo: . @IBatch, I’m a huge fan of Jovo, but I just feel that his defensive game is a little too weak in order to be put ahead of Ohlund and Hughes. In other words, the gap between Ohlund’s defensive game and Jovo’s, is greater than the gap between Jovo’s offensive game and Ohlund’s. On the flip side, this is also why I didn’t include Mitchell or Hamhuis on my top 6 (I.e. almost no offensive prowess).