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

Dazzle

Members
  • Content Count

    8,809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Dazzle

  1. 11 minutes ago, AV. said:

    There's an old saying that goes "If everybody you knew jumped off a bridge, would you also jump off that bridge?"  Were 12 teams wrong to be interested in Poolman?  No, not necessarily.  But if the price and term get into a region for which you've been burned before, you should probably have some buyer beware and pull yourself from these bidding wars.  That's the core of Poolman criticisms, from me anyway.

     

    The last part is hopeful.  It's certainly possible but too naïve to suggest in this moment.

    Cool, so you're so scarred by previous incidents that you feel justified that you won't jump back into the pool. Not to invalidate PTSD, but that's why people have the gall to be a GM. But one thing that's applicable to you: it's easier to criticize than to produce anything of substance.

    You've admitted your bias. People have called you biased. You call them naive. :lol::rolleyes:

  2. 6 minutes ago, Josepho said:

    OEL has a worse contract then all of those guys, so yes I'd prefer any of them.

     

    Doing that trade for Brenden Dillon would've been smarter. Maybe would've offered St. Louis something for Vince Dunn. Winnipeg had Demelo exposed, possibly could've offered some sort of package for him. Not that I would've liked this move, but I would probably rather offer Martinez a big deal than give one to OEL. Guys like Hakanpaa and Pysyk are going for far better deals than Poolman.

     

    A GM never HAS to make a move.

     

    What "reliable players at reasonable costs" are you referring to? I'm not complaining about contracts like Schenn/Hunt.

    First off, it's safe to say the latest FA signings involving Barrie, Hamilton, Ceci are overpaid. By nature, they are, because they have a bigger name attached to them. So you've COMPLAINED about overpaying in previous signings, and now you would've added them. Really?

     

    Also, FYI, Dougie Hamilton joins Devils on $63 million, 7-year deal - so no, OEL doesn't have a 'worse' contract than all of those guys. Tyson Barrie plays pretty sketchy defense and would not have helped the Canucks, period. The fact that you're advocating for these 'big name' UFAs contradicts your previous complaints. Not to mention, you've demonstrated your bias.

     

    I don't know what the market was for the other players, but Martinez was most likely never considered by the Canucks due to his past behavioural history.

     

    Hamonic isn't overpaid - he's a known entity for Hughes, and did an admirable job last year on a cheap contract. He's proven. I don't see a problem with this signing at all. While Poolman is the most contentious signing of the FA, he is only 28 with low mileage, and had a very good playoff series with WIN. He might not be top 4 material, but at 2.5, it's a cheap option.

     

    In terms of reasonable signings, Benning has made a statement this offseason in contrast to his previous 'overpaying' seasons. The fact that you can't see these differences is a concern.

  3. 9 minutes ago, Provost said:

    Well it is pretty understandable to consider that angle based on very recent history.

     

    We have had several years in a row where we signed guys who were immediately untradeable because of those contracts.  We also just gave up a lot to get rid of those players and correct those errors.

     

    it isn’t one awful contract that had handcuffed us, it was a trend of $1 million too much and 1 year too much term to a bunch of guys.  More than the rest of the market was willing to pay…

     

    Folks brought up Hankanpaa as a comparable (not as quick, but much more physical).  He got $1 million less per year and 1 year less term.

     

    It is also hard to rationally blame the Vancouver market or this forum when the national media are saying the same thing.

     

     

    There are a lot of teams that have fallen into this trap, so this is hardly a 'Vancouver' thing'. The other points that you make will make it clear why I take this angle.

     

    The so-called 'trend' of 1 million too much has been applied to practically every single signing, INCLUDING the Pearson one, which ISN'T an overpayment (even though many people will say it is).

     

    What I am pointing out is that just because someone says it is overpaid, it doesn't mean it is ACTUALLY the case.. Often, it is fueled by bias.

     

    Now I'm going back to the 'national media' part. It's interesting you say they are "saying the same thing" - but they're not. Sportsnet is the only network that rated the Canucks the lowest. Other media outlets are saying Vancouver did a good job.

     

    The so-called 'opinion'  that you're talking about is contentious, and just because you have one doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one either.

     

    You're also conflating Hankanpaa as being equal to Poolman, which is not the case. If so, he wouldn't be signed for the same thing in Dallas. (And that in itself is a complicated matter because of the tax situation in Texas).

     

    In summary, your post that was meant to clarify things is actually a conflation of multiple issues. This is not limited to Vancouver fans, but they are often vulnerable to making these fallacious conclusions.

     

    You've also proven the point that posters are BIASED based on past events. We can call this skeptical, but that in itself is a bias.

    • Hydration 1
  4. 2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

    OJ needs to clear waivers to go to the minors.  I think it’s almost certain he’d get claimed.  

    Would OJ really be claimed? Does he really have a spot in the NHL, other than Vancouver?

     

    I think it's pretty unlikely. The most value Juolevi has is to Vancouver.

  5. 30 minutes ago, Josepho said:

    I liked the Dickinson pickup, the fact that he finally starts caring about our AHL team, and that he isn't dramatically overpaying for 4th liners anymore.

     

    I hated what he did with the defence and it makes it impossible for me to call this offseason good.

     

     

    Who did you want on defence? Barrie? Hamilton? Ceci? :picard:

    You complain about 'overpaying', and then you complain about having reliable players at reasonable costs.

  6. 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    that caught my ear too. I guess moving OJ is possible but hopefully not just for a pick, I'd prefer a more developed prospect back. 

    I don't think it makes sense to trade Juolevi, especially for the so-called 'more developed' prospect.

     

    1) Juolevi is probably very cheap to re-sign, unless he wants out and/or management is done with him (both of which I think are unlikely possibilities). Moreover, he can be buried in the farm if need be.

    2) Juolevi likely has little value WORTH trading away for.

    3) You won't get a more developed prospect back unless he cost too much (also nonsensical)

  7. 9 minutes ago, AV. said:

    Mhmm, not quite.

     

    The Canucks didn't have to move Schmidt.  There was mutual interest from the player and team to move on, but it's not like he was threatening to sit out nor not report.  With this in mind, Canucks had a bit of leverage to command a certain price.  In this case, they were happy to recoup what they paid and maybe they would've held on to him if Winnipeg tried low-balling.

     

    At the same time, Winnipeg obviously wanted to improve it's defence.  They had no trouble paying two 2nds for Dillon.  I don't think they would have suddenly decided to cheap out on Schmidt.  We have even more reason to believe this as Winnipeg tried hard to get him from VGK just last year (Schmidt wouldn't waive at that time).

    This is most likely to be false. Benning had a cap problem. Given that Garland had been signed, having Schmidt was not necessarily the wisest decision. Other GMs knew this and COULD HAVE asked for a king's ransom. The Canucks still had to sign Petterson, Hughes, and Dickinson (Juolevi too). It wouldn't have been wise for the GM to pigeon hole himself with the space. This arguably shows that Benning has positioned himself for future moves (moves that we saw recently, for example), as well as any potential risks of offersheets.

     

    Instead, the Canucks passed on the savings they got from the LV deal to Winnipeg, which arguably could be seen as a loss at the same time - Canucks only got a year of Schmidt for free. But at least WIN's GM didn't want to embarrass Benning. Yet this 'saving face' policy is applicable the other GMs around the league as well. Chicago and Fleury, for instance. LV NEEDED that cap space.

     

    I'm not saying that GMs are doing favours that would screw themselves selflessly; there has to be a mutual benefit to it. Often it is to get good players at huge discounts. Some GMs don't get much respect though around the league - one of those was our past GM Gillis, but arguably GMs who had to bend themselves over to clear cap spaces (NYI/PHI, for example - Toronto too.)

     

    Cap space is a luxury. And teams that had it COULD have screwed teams over, yet that is not always the case.

     

     

     

     

    • Hydration 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, AV. said:

    Ok, well, let's hope Benning has a network of people ready to help him, if it gets to that point.

    Why else would Schmidt get a 3rd after having an OBVIOUSLY bad year from Winnipeg? Winnipeg could've offered a 4th and made a statement. (This is in reference to the fact that Benning got a 3rd for Schmidt originally)

  9. Just now, AV. said:

    You see, I love posts like these because they project what they think they're reading vs what I'm actually saying.

     

    I have not, at any point, said this is crippling.  I have argued it's potential to be crippling but I'm not saying it is in this moment.  I argue it's potential because I've seen it play out quite a few times with multiple players.  There's a distinction.

     

    Hope this helps.

    Lol. I have read your posts with little discrimination. I have agreed with you on things - sometimes completely. But mostly I'm in disagreement with your stuff, especially with how you approach things. Look no further that you've spent the bulk of your time debating in the Poolman thread, often with little relevance to the player himself, but to the GM.

     

    To me, it's obvious to me that you've got a slant against the GM, so much so that it bleeds into your posts.

    • Hydration 2
  10.  

    1 minute ago, AV. said:

    Again, you need to have a taker for this to be true.  Even then, some need to be enticed.

     

    These are fair factors to consider.

    Considering that Tampa is getting a pretty jammy treatment from other teams, it's obvious that enticement is not necessary. There is a blatant collusion going on with some GMs.

  11. 1 minute ago, AV. said:

    You see, the "why" doesn't make it good justification, though, especially since we've been burned with giving term and money to these types of players in the past under this management.  Hard to say one is "learning from his mistakes" as is often suggested here when they go out and give similar contracts out to these same players.

     

    As for if his contract will be crippling, it really depends on the makeup of the team going forward and who management decides to bring in or re-sign.  It is impossible, in addition to being lazy, naïve, and irresponsible, to say, definitively, it won't be crippling.  With that said, no forms of movement protection + the cap (potentially) going up will significantly reduce the dangers of this contract.  At this time, those are just variables, however.

    Lol... it is just as lazy, naive, and irresponsible to say, definitively, that it IS crippling. :lol: You're one of the last ones on the board qualified to talk about this.

     

    That's the point. A lot of the arguments, especially in this thread, have been rehearsed dribble from the same crowd of people who have little interest in discussing the overall pros/cons of a GM, but focussing on the negative ones. That is blatantly a one-sided argument.

     

     

    • Hydration 2
  12. 24 minutes ago, RakuRaku said:

    JB said he would try to get another Russian guy to keep Podz company! So.. I am really curious if he'd do that... 

     

    I highly doubt the fanbase here wanna see Guddy ever again... He's a nice sweet guy but just couldn't do a decent job defensively for us... 

    Guddy should be an assistant or something, or a commentator. I don't hate the guy. When he came here, he was severely overpaid, which I KNOW oldnews will disagree ;)

     

    That being said, Guddy did give it his all. I don't think anyone can deny that from him. He might not have an offensive game, but he's a character guy.

  13. 1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

    The potential for that is there now.

    I think that the league has recently shown that they take their rules very seriously.  

    The Arizona penalty for breaking the draft rules was harsh and this is a franchise they have coddled like no other.

    They aren't going to do what they did for Lou Lamoriello, letting him off the hook for cap circumvention, again.

    The recapture penalty for Luongo was also a case of changing the rules for what was supposed to be legal within the frameworks of stuff.

    The NHL actually approved the contracts, so they should've been honoured/grandfathered during the NHL change. NOPE.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2
  14. 1 minute ago, Locke Lamora said:

    Jimbo getting a lot of kudos from all around the hockey world - with the exception being the negative nancy’s in the Vancouver media of course - and I love to see it. Sure, some of his moves were “fixing” his own mistakes but at least he manned up and dealt with them.

     

    I’ll be in Abby for all of Training Camp. Hope to see some of you there!

    FWIW, Sportsnet gave Jimbo a D+, but gave Edmonton a B+, and Toronto got a C+...

    • Haha 4
  15. 50 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

    The comparison of Yamamoto makes me excited. Because Yamamoto plays like Hoglander. 

     

    And Hoglander is the goat. 

     

    If the comparison to Gallagher is even remotely close a 1st round pick is a ridiculous thing to give him away for. 

    If you watch the highlights, you'll see Garland drives to the hard areas. Guy is fearless, like Hoglander. His play will rub off on A LOT of players.

    And it's interesting because Garland is actually 5'8, not 5'10. He confirms this size difference in the interview, but you'd NEVER see this size concern from last season's clips.

     

     

    • Like 1
  16. 9 hours ago, 204CanucksFan said:

    I really have no problem with him going and playing next season with Minsk if he doesn't make the team out of camp. What happened with Podkolzin and SKA isn't going to be what happens to Klimovich. The KHL is a league of  the 'Haves' and 'Have Nots', and basically every team outside of SKA and CSKA belong to the 'Have Not' group. Minsk is the kind of team that just wants to compete in the KHL and they will play anyone who they think gives them a chance to win.

     

    They won't have the attitude of "If you don't sign with us we aren't going to play you", plus it looks really good for them having the young, local kid playing a major role for the team. If the kid can go to the KHL, play top 6 minutes and put up points as an 18/19 year old it could be better for his development than the AHL.

     

    As many have pointed out the Minsk coaching and development staff are very heavily geared towards the NA style. Also add in that the majority of teams in the KHL use an NA size rink so he can get used to that size ice and the kind of time and space it affords. The other big factor for me is that, despite there being some debate on the topic on these boards, the KHL is still the 2nd best hockey league in the world. And I really can't see a downside to having him developing in a major role in that league.

    Totally agree with this. I'm definitely warmed up to this pick after watching more video of this guy. I completely get it why Benning is so excited about this guy. That being said, letting him go to the KHL will allow him to take his time and develop. There is no need to rush him. He can develop the leadership skills while he's at home in Minsk. He's still just a kid. I'm sure Benning won't push this kid to come over so soon, but I could be wrong! Maybe the AHL will fast track him to success.

×
×
  • Create New...