Dazzle
-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dazzle
-
-
28 minutes ago, Provost said:
Actually there isn’t much cap space available next season. We have almost no money coming off the books and have huge raises due our three best players. We also have to absorb ELC bonuses pushed into next season that we can’t afford this season.
The season after next season 2022-23, there might be some more cap space.
, depending on what we sign Petterson, Hughes, and Demko to. But we also can’t spend it because in all the following years we have raises due to Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Hoglander, and likely Petterson, Hughes, and Demko again since we can only afford short bridge deals.
All those raises happen in consecutive years. Every efficient contract we have expires and will be paid market rate.
I believe Eriksson will be bought out next year, so that would be helpful. If they remove players like Pearson (thru trade deadline), who probably could be replaced by a cheaper, unproven winger (namely anyone in our system), that will help save money. If Myers is gone (thru expansion draft), that saves money. If Holtby's gone, that too. Sutter may or may not be coming back.
I think this next offseason actually will benefit the Canucks, more so than other years. The most painful part is gone - losing Markstrom and Tanev could possibly be a win for the Canucks long term.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Provost said:
I don't fire Green because he isn't our coach after this season as his contract is up. A new GM can come in and assess things, and decide if Green is his guy or he wants someone else.
His contract is ending soon. They could sign him for one year, but then the GM will have to be stuck with him. I would have thought that letting everyone, minus Clark, would have been the most logical choice, and have the GM handpick everyone. It'll be a lot of work, sure, but then the team will have a fresh start.
-
2
-
-
On 3/13/2021 at 6:27 AM, Wolfgang Durst said:
Kirill Kaprizov with a hat trick in yesterday's game against the Arizona Coyotes, especially his third goal was a beauty, buried a one timer home. Checked out at what draft pick he was selected by the Wild and couldn't believe that he was a 135 overall pick /(5th round) for the Wild. Wild hit gold with this pick. His stats in the KHL are very impressive. His first appearance was back in the season 2014-2015. Last two seasons with ZSKA Moskau he scored 30 goals and 33 goals respectively.
https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/265645/kirill-kaprizov
What player in the later rounds Jim had drafted during his tenure turned out to be such a beauty? Jim's draft record isn't as good as many fans believe. Just saying...
Very poor take.
Look at the Hoglander draft - which player could Benning have picked in that spot that would be superior to him now?
Oh wait, you're selectively ignoring certain aspects of Benning's drafting to push forward an argument that will inherently have flaws.
-
6 minutes ago, wildcam said:
Just checking Tyler Maddens, 21, 5'11, stats with L.A Kings farm team Ontario GP 12 - PTS 4
But but but... Madden was too high of a price to pay for Toffoli! FIRE BENNING !!!!! /sar
I have nothing against Madden, but he CLEARLY was a redundant piece for the Canucks. Where was Madden going to fit on our roster? (Question wasn't meant to be directed at you).
People, you have to give to get something. Madden was the price for a rental Toffoli. And if Madden doesn't pan out for the Kings (too early to say this), guess what? Both sides possibly lost (long term wise).
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Provost said:
If they play lights out, I keep Green but still fire Benning.
We would still have a team where a bunch of players wouldn’t be picked up if they were out on waivers, that is a GM issue... not a player effort issue.
The team just doesn’t have the talent and has serious cap issues for a team with so little success. If Green can get more out of them for a stretched it doesn’t change that.
Why are we ONLY firing Benning? Green has proven very little, aside from a nice playoff run (in other words, similar to WD). If you're going to fire Benning, fire/let go of everyone under him as well, with exception to Ian Clark. Clean house. Keeping Green is leaving a remnant of Benning behind.
WD and TG are far too similar in stats, with regards to wins and losses for my liking. The roster that TG has is much better than what WD ever had. At this point, Green's inability to rise above his predecessor is possibly indicative of his style of coaching and/or not being able to maximize a player's usefulness. At some point, he has to answer to this question.-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:
Hopefully Green is done after this season. You're mentioning dumb choices in the lineup, agreed. But also, everything is so inconsistent. In my business, everything is so systematic. You know exactly what you're doing and have a rock-solid plan of attack. No excuses.
Nothing about Green's system is revolutionary. Yet why are we seeing some epic proportion structural breakdowns? I don't get it at all. The dump and chase system is only good if you're fast enough to retrieve it, which is, in most cases, never. You have Hughes that can carry the puck, so there needs to be a better neutral zone/offensive zone support system. The defense pinching is so brutal - I really wonder if Baumer is the ONLY reason why Green's system looks so terrible. Replace Baumer and I'd like to give Green another chance.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, 4petesake said:
I'm sorry, but Baumer/Green have to go. Benning too if he thinks they're the most competent coaches out there, which is TOTALLY false. There's always new blood out there, particularly ones who require a new place to shine, and have a pedigree and/or achievements to coach.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, SNuck said:
The entire Canucks bottom 6 is injured so I'll update this as news comes in.
Where did you hear this?
-
5 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:
This is probably one of the most unselfish plays you will see in hockey with Anthony Mantha giving Vladislav Namestnikov a chance to score the empty-net goal.
This is so wholesome. What was the reason for Mantha to do this?
-
Taking a cursory approach on this, Buffalo is by far the biggest loser. This will be their 10th season IN A ROW that they've missed the playoffs. Their version of McDavid - Eichel - is their only saving grace on a team that wasn't even able to make the playoffs, even when more teams were included for the play-in games. That's 9 years of bad drafting/mismanagement, and seemingly no hope for the future.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:
At worst, I'm guilty of a bit of light-hearted hyperbole when I suggest that "we take it and run" re: Motte for a 2nd. I would say that has more to do with my enthusiasm/interest in the potential opportunity to acquire a top 60 draft pick (where traditionally, players with the highest ceilings in tend to be taken) more than it has anything to do with how I view Motte as a player. The same would go for a player like Pearson and the same has gone for players like Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc., in the past. You can recognize a player's skill/worth and also recognize an opportunity to maximize their value. In short, wanting to trade Motte for a 2nd really has nothing to do with Motte himself as much as it has to do with making a move to steer the organization in a positive direction by adding a high pick for a player that can, figuratively, for the reasons I listed before, be replaced.
Draft picks are gambles in a general sense, sure. Yet, the right scouting departments and managerial groups tend to hit more than others when they know what they're doing or know what to look for. Now, many on this board, yourself included, have applauded Jim Benning and his team for drafting, often listing that as one of his strengths. Seems a bit contradictory - in my view anyway - that we wouldn't want to give our management team a high pick to potentially select an NHL player with a higher ceiling than that of Motte's. When you factor in that management also sees the team in a bit of a rut that will take two years to get back to competing, it seems that we have a few seasons to find/develop a replacement. With this in mind, why wouldn't we (or shouldn't we) want to add picks and stock our cupboard while building towards two seasons from now?
Fair point to the first paragraph. I really don't have any issues with what you said there. In fact, I agree that if the Canucks can offload some players for a rebuild of some sort, that might be ideal, otherwise we will risk them walking for nothing one day when their values drop.
Because even if our drafting was better (I think it would be insane to say our drafting under GM JB is BETTER than TB), there is a chance that the new player doesn't work out. That's just the way things are. If every GM could have it their way, their picks would never miss. I'm sure Boston was licking their lips when they had three first round picks all at the same time - and yet all three of picks missed one of Barzal, Connor, and Boeser who were picked shortly after. Boston's drafting has not been historically bad either.
Even teams TB have made BAD picks too. The whole 2015 year for Chicago, I had to look up, was a complete miss. 2016 wasn't much better, except for DeBrincat in the second round. 2017 had one player - Jokiharu. They picked a young defenseman too that's still on their team. 2018 was better: Boqvist and Kurashev. So no team bats anywhere close to 50 percent in a draft. It's just not possible.
Colorado's drafting generally hits on their first round picks. Yes, Rantanen is good. Yes they have McKinnon and Landeskog. (1st and 2nd overall, respectively). They took some time to rebuild though because not all their picks pan out.
So even though we've picked some great players recently, GM Benning may or may not be around to see how good of a job (or not) he's done with drafting, especially with a pick like Podkolzin who's probably like another Motte
Drafting/developing is difficult to master/gauge. There's always constantly new material to learn, and if you use older models for drafting (i.e. big body, high PIMs), it might not necessary be advisable nowadays.
That's just my thought, mixed in with a little bit of reading.
-
40 minutes ago, RU SERIOUS said:
Oh really.................https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/aquilini-family-lose-appeal-in-federal-tax-court-to-offset-capital-gains-in-deal-to-buy-nhl-team
If you've kept up with the business news in recent years you'd know what the real purpose is for the Aqua-Lini's ownership of the Canucks.
I read the articles, but I feel that you calling the whole thing a tax writeoff to be a bit misleading. He didn't buy this team to dodge taxes completely. I'm hoping someone else can elaborate this further, but it doesn't sound like what you're describing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, RU SERIOUS said:
Isn't that the Real Estate developer guy who only owns the Canucks to obtain their financial losses as a tax write-off against his profitable house building empire so he can pay less overall corporate tax and who couldn't care less if we lose or win?
What? He spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure the team with stability, which in turn helps employ thousands of people in sports and other businesses. There isn't a tax write off. Furthermore, he purchased the arena himself, as opposed to asking the city to pay for it, unlike Edmonton's arena. Your suspicion on the tax angle doesn't make much sense.
-
2
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:
I appreciate you dropping the side argument and getting back on topic. Thanks for that.
While my original post sounds contradictory and "illogical", all of the things I said can be true. Tyler Motte can (1) be worth a lot, and at the same time, (2) be replaceable. Here's why:
Right now, we can all agree Tyler Motte holds a ton of value, whether to us as fans or to the Canucks themselves. Rightfully so. He hits, can kill penalties, provides energy, occasionally has a goal in him, so on and so forth. At the same time, he's doing all of this at a cheap price while being a fairly nice age. The sum of all this, and not the individual attributes themselves, makes him an attractive piece. We know this because we can ask ourselves how many others - those who are unique like him in terms of age, price, etc. - are on the market and quickly come to the conclusion that very little, if any, are available. At the same time, we can look at other factors, such as his stock and growing clout around the league. Many people saw how well he played in the bubble. While I'm sure it varies among executives, no doubt some will value that more than others, which theoretically affects Motte's value. David Poile felt the need to move a 1st for Paul Gaustad (could have theoretically moved two 4ths for Pahlsson but that's an argument for another time); Tampa Bay moved two 1sts for Coleman and Goodrow; Doug Wilson was prepared to move a 1st (albeit conditional) for Jannik Hansen. These trades tell us that certain bottom-six/bottom-six suited players can garner a high return.
Despite all this though, we have to look at what Tyler Motte is at his core: he's a bottom six player. All of those things above, while key traits to have as a player, aren't really valuable as standalone entities. Many players can kill penalties (or be taught to), many players can score 5-10 goals a season, many players can hit, provide energy, so on and so forth. These types of players, while incredibly useful, aren't core guys. You may not have seen the post but I previously said that we have had many "Mottes" on this team. What Tyler Motte does for us now is no different to what players like Jarkko Ruutu, Alex Burrows, Jannik Hansen, Raffi Torres, Maxim Lapierre, Brad Richardson, Derek Dorsett, etc., brought to this team. Arguably, only Burrows and Hansen needed "replacing" but they were far better than Motte. We should also look at the circumstances in which Motte himself emerged on this team. Did anybody really expect him to turn into the player he is today? How many of us thought he was just another warm body/project player like Cramarossa/Etem/Molino/Granlund/that idiot kid in Russia? Management may have seen it (they did target him in the Vanek deal) but I doubt anybody on the fan side of things predicted it. For as quickly and suddenly he emerged as a useful forward for us, we'd be fools to think it was a lucky coincidence and not a common circumstance for how bottom six players typically enter the league.
I like Motte and I'm happy to keep him around but if a team comes offering a 2nd, thinking he could be their Coleman or Goodrow, you absolutely have to consider it/take it. And no, there won't be Motte 2.0 lying around to replace this Motte but there will be many like him( in the form of young players with something to prove, established vets, etc.) that can offer some, if not all, of the same things.
I will then say that I appreciate you for elaborating your perspective, rather than just ramming through a particular opinion without some sort of justification. Thanks for that, no sarcasm intended. Much of my gripe with your posts is that you seemed to ignore contrarian evidence.
I don't know how you can think both conditions to be true. Using your point that one should laugh their way to the bank if Motte is given a 2nd round pick as a return, that illustrates that you personally do not view him to be worth that much. This is therefore considered common knowledge. Something that is probably agreed upon by most reasonable people. So why would GMs who appraise players all the time feel that Motte should then be worth a 2nd? This is so contradictory, you're right. It's like proposing Raymond, Ballard and a 1st in exchange for a desirable player, yet trashing the former two players as being useless, at the same time. That's not how it works in reality, and I suspect you realize this. You can't have it both ways. Either Motte is highly regarded or not. You can't also make the statement that a lot of players can do his job, or take his place. I mean it's a joke after all that Eriksson is a 6M pker.
The second thing about draft picks is that they are gambles. We've seen multiple examples of three (!) First round picks by Boston not really panning out as originally planned. Secondly, Hoglander was clearly a diamond in the rough. If you look at the players before and after him, no player is as impactful as him, minus the few high first round picks. Picks and players are gambles. Getting a 2nd doesn't mean we'll get a good player for sure. It just means we'll get a new player with higher potential. Dahlen, for example, was a return that the Canucks received for Burrows.
Dahlen looks like a bust for SJ. He's been toiling in Timra the entire time with similar stats. It's a second tier league he is playing. Meanwhile, we received Linus Karlsson, who is doing well. Yet we have no idea how good he'll end up being.
-
2 minutes ago, Josepho said:
It's interesting how a team with such a good core of drafted players is still 7th last in point percentage after being hired nearly 7 years ago.
I wonder why that's the case.
7 years ago, we had no drafted players to write home about, courtesy of Gillis. (Exception, Horvat).
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 minutes ago, Harold27k said:Green refuses to use a timeout when we got blitzed and Demko stood on his head to keep it 1-0 in 1st
Green's player deployment is absolutely horrible, Mikaelis and Hawrluk are not nhl ready, Beagle and Roussel are past their better days and 4/12 forward spots wasted by these 4 guys with zero offensive upside and zero physical factors
We got some gems in Miller/Demko/Pettie/Boeser/Hughes/Horvat/Myers/Edler but the bottom side of the roster horrible
Look am a bigtime fan but Benning left the bottom 6 with not much depth,Pearson offers little, bring up Cole Lind lets see what he can do, and hopefully Green doesnt get signed beyond this yr his team is soft and his deployment terrible, he needs to go asap
Some posters claim I am a Benning fan. I like a lot of his stuff, especially drafting and developing, which has dramatically changed this franchise for the better. That being said, I've been adamant that keeping WD and TG (and staff) is something that he should get his ass lit for.
The worst part is that TG has a far more talented roster than WD ever did, and yet...TG (114-118)
https://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/greentr01c.html
vs.
WD (136-144)
https://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/desjawi99c.html
:|
-
4
-
1
-
Just now, DeNiro said:
Unfortunately Montreal is a team we absolutely needed to beat in order to get back in the race.
Edmonton and Winnipeg are pulling away so that just leaves Calgary.
Indeed. With this loss, our playoff chances drop dramatically, in spite of our last three games. It's a shame really. Coaching should have been switched because MTL and CAL did theirs.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Dogcrazy said:
Pearson is a proven top 6 in his entire career, Virtanen is not.
Underlying stats suggest Pearson is not much different than Virtanen. I was actually surprised by how ineffective he is. His GV/TK ratio is VERY similar to Virtanen's, and they're both streaky players.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, King Heffy said:
Nonis got fired for not trading away 2 of Edler/Kesler/Schnieder for a Brad Richards rental. The Sedins likely walk if he makes that deal.
Well, clearly he made a good decision by not doing it.
Nonis had his mistakes too - don't get me wrong. He should've re-signed Carter, who only made a million the year before. Dunno why they decided to move on from him. This was like the opposite of the Toffoli situation.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
The usual suspects hoping to pounce on a loss they were sure quiet the last 3 games
I have been happy with Green when we won, even when we nearly lost last game. But this game was clearly a tale of two games, compared to the previous one.
3 minutes ago, b3. said:Any takers on TG saying “that’s a good team over there”?
Oh boy... we should have include this as part of our drinking game for CDC.
-
2
-
-
Just now, CptCanuck16 said:
Your not going back far enough brah. Dave Nonis is the reason were in this situation. It's all his fault.
Nonis drafted Edler.
Nonis drafted Cory Schneider --> Horvat through Gillis.
Luongo trade?
And what did Gillis do again? Really?
Everyone makes excuses for his Stanley Cup run, which should be noted, of course. But we are talking about drafting and developing. After he left, the team was in a terrible position wise. So, no, it wasn't "all" Nonis' fault.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Devron44 said:
He inconsistent offensively. Doesn’t hurt the team when he’s out there but I don’t think I’d pay him unless it some covid deal but I doubt it
I honestly do not understand why Pearson gets more time in than Virtanen. Pearson has shown NOTHING in this game worth his ice time.
16 minutes, with 3 minutes of PP, versus Virtanen's 14 minus and 1 minute PP.
-
9 minutes ago, b3. said:
If you told me 12 years ago that Edler would still have to be our #1 defenseman.
I don’t think I would have believed you..
You're gonna have to thank Gillis for finding no replacement for him whatsoever, either through the draft, free agency or trade. Seriously horrendous if you were to trace back to the roots of the original problems of this team.
-
3
-
-
17 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:
I'm not sure how an honest observation about how YOU interpreted a situation ("there's no ELL-related errors here, poster is just dumb LOL") is bringing personal life into things. It's not like I accused you of being xenophobic either lmfao.
Very odd poster you are.
I'll take that as a compliment, considering you've been given so many chances to explain the logic that Motte can be replaced by "a lot of players", and oh, he should be flipped for a high pick.
On 3/9/2021 at 7:55 PM, Alain Vigneault said:For what it's worth, I'm happy to keep Motte and Schmidt. But if offers come along that make sense or are beyond their value, it's crucial we pull the trigger. A lot of players can come in and do what Motte does. Less so for Schmidt but he's also replaceable.
Development time is key but with our competitive timeline being pushed back by 2 years, we don't necessarily have a need for picks to develop straight away. According to the experts on this board, Lind/Gadjovich/Woo are all studs in the making so we should be fine.
Umm...
What?
No one is going to give a high pick for Motte, if he can be replaced by a lot of players. Wait... does that mean your statement was wrong then?
Nah, I'm not expecting you'll see the errors of your judgements, nor admit it.
So yes, a very odd poster because I'm not one of the posters that take things at face value and agree with you just because you said it.
Drafting/developing is difficult to master/gauge. There's always constantly new material to learn, and if you use older models for drafting (i.e. big body, high PIMs), it might not necessary be advisable nowadays.
Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW
in Alumni
Posted · Edited by Dazzle
Jake Virtanen vs a slightly tired McDavid. Still impressive. His IQ is actually not bad at all. Look how he protects this puck away from McDavid. Very effective.