grouse747

if i had to "bet on it", i'd feel confident EK didn't bet on SJ games and/or against his own team. and i'd be "fairly confident" he didn't bet on hockey.. he can't be that stupid...... i see a journalist cites a bunch of vegas insiders saying they weren't aware of EK sports betting in vegas. i realize there are lots of other ways to bet on hockey. and vegas would be too high profile........... of course, at the end of the day i'd also wonder who'd take large EK bets on hockey. it isn't exactly a large market and i think you are setting yourself up for alot of trouble taking those bets. i guess the same could be said of pete rose and of course that did happen. MORE IMPORTANTLY TO ME, when does EK "cross the line" and get judged to have engaged repeatedly in "basic indecent/immoral" behaviour? promising someone $3M to get an abortion and then stiffing them? $500k gambling debt in vegas unpaid (how did that slide?), violence against women in buffalo..... where does it end? to think that EK is part of a "racism in hockey" panel...... LOL, EK is a 100% d-bag regardless of race. btw, SJ thinking of voiding EK contract..... was that to help him? that's what i read. so that he doesn't have a contract creditors can attach to in bankruptcy court?... seems shocking to me (and it didn't happen)..... i'd also question whether EK would get a new lucrative contract from anyone

i agree totally..... of course, hughes, demko etc. are great trade assets. i think people think you need to get something for nothing...... it's marginally ok only to trade something (the 9th pick) that isn't contributing to team now or in near future.

i've been looking at the final 8 NHL playoff rosters. so many key players who weren't drafted highly. many were developed by current team. some by a previous team.......... so much talk on this forum seems to revolve around getting more elite talent (which would be nice, and teams should always strive for this) as opposed to developing more talent ourselves., we seem to have a key core of six players. and i think most teams would be ecstatic to have that core 6 players. excepting the goalie, all 5 of our core players were drafted in the first round. 3 in the top 10 picks. we need to develop NHL calibre players........... and we need the players we have to play much better...... on both these criteria, i think the team/organization culture is really key. and i think our organizational/team culture is quite weak. thanks in advance for any comments ..... somewhat of a reversal for me as i've said before that elite talent is the ultimate differentiator between teams. but that is partially because i thought/think developing decent NHL 3rd and 4th liners shouldn't be that difficult. and partially i was wrong, i think.

cliff notes: you can't get something for nothing..... we can make a big trade. but at least one of the core 6 players or the 9th overall pick has to go. probably 2 of these assets if neither is QH or EP i don't understand many of the comments in here, 1) how many big name/top player trades are there in the NHL? most teams want to keep these players. and to me, it makes sense that they are most valuable to the teams where they are already playing very well. who knows with another team/city/coach/teammates? 2) how many teams are mentioned in these trades?... i also think players want to live/play in USA. players seem to stay down there when they retire. and i don't think the reverse is true 3) we have the assets to trade for a star (seth jones?).... trade EP or QH and maybe something moderate... or trade 2 of BB, BH, Demko, Miller, 9th pick overall (maybe have to add in 3rd moderate asset too)........ people don't want to trade players when they are playing well. and then their value is negatively impacted once they are injury-prone and/or don't play as well....... to get max value, you need to trade player at peak. but then people don't want to do that.

I think it's actually a decent idea to change things up like this situationally. like if we are down a goal in the last 10 minutes of the game... even more QH to forward at times... and definitely work players out of position in practice/training camp sometimes. at the very least, see the game differently. but as to full-time shift, probably wouldn't do it.

I think people are too pessimistic on our defence and don't understand what a "rebuild on the fly" entails. our cheap, mediocre defensemen actually have plus/minus figures pretty much at zero. our free agent signings have been really poor..... not sure we are highly unique in that regard. so play your young talent. what's the worst thing that will happen? have a year like this past year?... and augment it with cheap, veteran defensemen. frankly, our power play and penalty killing were very mediocre this year. don't have it in front of me but somewhere in the 20th rank for each. and that has very little to do with depth (3rd and 4th line players that I constantly hear about)

does OP actually think we outplayed other teams alot of nights? we had some big wins for sure....... but lots and lots of not very close loses. and demko stole some wins for us.

those original stats look suspect.... suspect at source, not the OP's fault. couldn't we get away from subjective, advanced stats and look at shots for/against?.... does not look pretty for Canucks. nor did it look that great when markstrom was here last year. goalies have stolen alot of games for us. I love advanced stats in sports, but subjectivity is double-edged sword..... good as it's lots of work and gives u unique information. but these stats will vary greatly from site to site. whereas objective stats (and there are some advanced, objective stats) won't. most teams had brutal schedules. many teams had huge covid issues........ Petey going down really hurt. but we lack depth.... and new players plus brutal early schedule was definitely tough. but other teams played tons of games of late and then have to jump right into playoff games....... so lots of teams had our problems. perhaps we had some unique negative moderate factors I'm inclined to just forget this season... but I'd also discount our playoff success last year. this team needs to develop a winning culture and develop 3rd and 4th line talent in-house.

we got up to 20%+ recently. thought that was overly generous (might have made that exact comment earlier in this thread).. using "hockey reference" site. now Canucks and Flames are 1.x% each............. and of course Canucks games haven't been very close recently someone mentioned this season being unique in that VCR needed both Calgary and Montreal to play poorly in 2nd half of the season to make playoffs. but Montreal/Calgary play each other a lot (like all Canadian Division teams) so it was hard for both to be terrible. but something else I would note: the concentrated games against teams made it so teams went hot/cold much more often than regular season....... i.e. playing Toronto 4 in a row, vs. playing Ottawa 4 in row..... of course, the Canucks struggled with Ottawa as the season went on and were great for awhile vs. Toronto.. but I think the idea still sticks... haven't checked the rest of the schedule but it feels to me like Edmonton has been very underrepresented in our schedule so far. maybe Winnipeg too, but less so

I wasn't aware of the "BB injury trading for TT" angle... thanks for bringing that to my attention I think the TT trade was fine, even in hindsight....... I mean, we did make a good playoff push with TT. it would have been a HUGE thing around the city IF it wasn't "COVID spring". that put a pretty big damper on it.

I'm thinking 3rd and 4th line and even the low-end 2nd line has a lot to do with attitude/desire/teach chemistry and less to do with talent. draft/sign more high energy but perhaps less skilled players and develop them yourselves it seems like players almost invariably play better for their old team than their new team when they are desirable players. I do like the idea of picking up talented, underachievers.... see Pete Carroll in Seattle. figures he can handle the personalities

DSVII, I am really curious on this effect. have people studied it? I assume so. and I agree it can be more than one game. apparently the one game betting works really well.. and I think you hit the nail on the head as to reasoning.. players are excited with more ice time and play better. the other team has scouted for EP team. and maybe lets down some. I've seen the massive release of positive energy in other sports with changes... but then it's regression to the mean or something similar after 5 games.

thank you..... as they say on Family Feud "good answer...... good answer"... and it was a good answer

what happened though in those 2 last games at Winnipeg right before covid? we scored one goal very late in 2nd game. and that was it...was that COVID?..... serious question, and not meaning to call you out. I am legit curious...... this team was so inconsistent this year. whenever we gave up on them, they played well and vice-versa. beat some awesome teams and vice-versa too. wonder if you could have made money betting it (100% hindsight comment of course)

I agree with the one poster...... JM got a lot of wins for the Canucks in past seasons.... would have been such a no-brainer to keep if not for TD. and I don't think we would have got that much for TD in a trade after a few sensational games. TD is a big body which takes away some of the performance risk. if he loses his confidence he will still take up a big % of the net (I have an idea for a Sumo Wrestler goalie. as I think others have. I think ESPN did an article on the idea) off-topic, but what happened to Calgary? JM was #3 pick for NHL MVP a 3rd of the way through the season one place I saw (very unscientific but reasonable qualified media guys)..... and Calgary and I think GAA has gone way downhill since.

wouldn't tons of teams love to have our core six players..... everyone knows who they are. which describes the problem perfectly. there is huge drop-off after BB, EP, BH, JTM, QH and TD. I don't think many other teams have a big a drop-off (it may or may not be after 6 players on another team).... AE or NS might not be a massive drop-off now that I think about it. but I do think many teams would love to have a top 6 like that. I think JB and TG, more JB, have failed in finding/developing beyond those top 6 players.... I will probably save it for the offseason forum, but I wonder about building a team in the NHL. is paying top dollar for mid 2nd and 3rd line veterans from other teams worth it? it doesn't seem like it. and Canucks are far from the only team that's been bitten by that. and of course, our some of our signings have performed really terribly. so it's combo of maybe not a good way to build and the players we sign not performing. I will change sports and mention baseball. I wonder about throwing money at players beyond a certain age AND when a player changes teams. Albert Pujos was a terrible signing for LAA, but if he'd stayed in STL it might have been ok. he was part of the caridinal culture there. less pressure to perform. and less stress if he doesn't perform well...... doesn't seem like changing teams works out as well as guys staying put. and of course, the players you really want in the NHL generally are not available. AP going from Blues to LV is a huge exception to this comment. as per my mention of goals and shots... Canucks are #23 and #28 in goal differential and shot differential. #23 in shooting percentage. and #13 in save percentage... so thank you TD. (and maybe BH, I'll have to check. been good recently)

I'm not aware of the "Ewing effect" but I think I know what it is and I will look it up. a well respected poster on a sports betting site had a theory that you should BACK an NBA team the first game without its star player... and FADE an NBA team the first game with its star player returning.....and I AGREE with that idea . but I think it should only be a small number of games that you BACK/FADE on that basis (and you might need to tweak/define things a bit). EP has been out a long time now.

by overall tenure or this season, your choice. obviously this season is kinda unique and mediocre/poor. but the team's outstanding run last year was under unique circumstances so to me they wash-out. I'd give him 6.5 on the season. maybe 7.0 overall tenure. good: developing talent. players seem to like him bad: alot of defensive lapses. maybe it's the flip side of players liking him (need more authoritative coach?).... and we get outshot badly a lot. (although I assume if I check shots for/against, we won't be far off our overall team rating). I did a post last year on this, but Canucks seem to be involved in alot of games where the goaltender steals the win. more giving Canucks the win, but definitely some the other way too. definitely wouldn't get rid of a coach based on this year's performance....... of course, it's tricky as realistically Canucks can't keep TG one more season as his contract runs out this summer. I see suggestions that TG has done outstanding job.... really? that's seem very generous.... one irony is the team had been doing better without EP than with him. but to me, it's a TG wash. underperformed with EP, outperformed without EP. one good, one bad. thanks in advance

we got to 20% or maybe slightly higher on hockey-reference.com (name?) and now back at around 7%, which I think is generous. although looked at another way, if you do "games back" like baseball or nhl, the Canucks are 2.5 games back with average 10.5 games (Montreal and Vancouver average) to go.. doesn't sound that daunting at all... I think "games back" assumes 50% win rates, which hockey doesn't have. so the 2.5 "games back" is understated. it would be easy to see that "2.5 games back" would be near impossible if average win rates were really high like 90% (of course that doesn't make logical sense, but NHL does have higher than 50% "adjusted win rate" this team has had some good runs, but tons and tons of decisive losses. and Demko flat out stole some games...... team needs a lot of work. heard caller saying TG is a very good coach. I don't think he's terrible but "very good" doesn't come to mind either.

now that I think about it.. play the A lineup for a few games....... I do wonder if the professional athlete psyche is that you still have a chance until you are mathematically eliminated..... I know that's true, but that's not remotely realistic.

looking at expanded standings.. Montreal is 5-5 last 10, which is poor. but Vancouver is interesting...... 6-3-1 last 10 games, but streak of 3 losses....... did we go unbeaten in reg time for at least 7 games recently? I knew we played well but don't remember that.... and of course, I remember the "one goal in 2 games" in Winnipeg, which I think were the last games.

there is some argument with all this rest and a "fresh start" we may come out hot........ didn't that happen COVID March 2020....... and then if we play really really well then we might do well in playoffs (like 2020). I do think the one comment is right on..... someone needs to be realistic if we don't come out of the gate hot. and Canucks odds will almost assuredly go to zero. but might spike a lot with 3 straight wins out of the game. curious what the delta would be on our playoffs chances i.e. how much they would change with one/two/three/etc. wins out of the gate.. I might try to model it, and first model I'd just assume Montreal doesn't play any games.

basically on 650, which I am really really enjoying after switching over from 1040, they were debating when to play more young players like rathbone and juolevi....... many radio people seem to think that Canucks have some reasonable chance of making the playoffs. I'd say 10%+ I looked up a bunch of sites that give an estimation of this... this is what I found. 1.6%, 3.1%, 3.3% 3.7%, 5.3%, 9%......... these were statistical models... the one site that had odds you could be on was the 3.0% (I adjusted for the juice. or put another way that the "yes" and "no" odds didn't add up to 100%) so I say play these young guys as soon as possible.... especially with the COVID.... I see so an incredible number of benefits. and zero drawbacks. I even see some big risks with playing our star players a lot in a covid/pointless end to the season...... It might be slightly different if Canucks home games had fans.... I understand the argument of waiting a few games........ but at some point, you have to realize that "numbers don't lie" (most of the time) as per 650 vs. 1040, I find 650 actually talks Canucks........... 1040 talked "how much time do you give Jake Virtanen?". can't even remember another tangible Canucks discussion (I guess maybe whether TG is a good coach....... and I'm talking the radio shows, not the Canucks post-game/reporter people). 1040 was more like sports-themed morning/afternoon drive radio show. they were more like radio personalities. Don Taylor was probably the 1 and only reason I listened to 1040.

Matt, thank you... I did not know that (shout-out to Johnny Carson)... that is pretty scary given that many teams are near maxed out this off-season.... many teams trying to do the same thing. and to think some thought we could trade LE to Ottawa by packaging a 2nd round draft pick. I think the bid-ask spread on fan's trade ideas is pretty wide................ I remember trading Cory S to NJ for 10th overall pick (correct?). many people thought it was bad trade (at the time. player's subsequent performance is hindsight.. I'm talking trade value). but would you trade a 10th overall pick for CS? or people thinking we could get back good 1st rounder for Demko after last year's playoffs?.......... would you do that if it was the other way around?.. send a 15th overall pick to a team for a promising goalie that was white-hot for some playoff games. so it sounds if things get scary cap-wise, you basically need to trade a solid 3rd line player for basically nothing. maybe even a low-end 2nd line player (when I say line, I mean defence too) I may do another thread on this. but I seriously wonder about free agent signings of players beyond a certain age and pay level.. JB signings have been bad, but I'm thinking he has a lot of company on that.

THANKS FOR ALL THE GREAT RESPONSES it was a serious technical question as opposed to carping about JB.. so it seems we chose getting Nate Schmidt and signing a veteran backup goalie (Holtby) over realistically TT as the player we might have kept... we had an imbalance of good F/D, so I would have suggested trading Miller or Horvat if we had kept TT. I think Miller is the obvious choice. I think Boeser brings something unique. Horvat is leader, good lead-by-example and very good on face-offs. I wasn't in favour of resigning Tanev given circumstances..... basically his age. although now I think 1) his type of game wouldn't be as effected by losing a step or two as others, 2) he is realistic the one thing you could point to in terms of Canucks being better last year. I think Demko vs. Markstrom is a wash (although Demko wasn't so great early... and Holtby not good as backup). we wouldn't be much better with last year's TT. this year's TT, yes, although he wouldn't get to feast on the Canucks if he played for them.