-
Posts
5,665 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by kloubek
-
No thanks. Schneider hasn't been an NHL-quality goalie for years, and his abilities have seen a progressive and consistent decline over that time. I like the guy just fine and it would be a cool feel-good story, but he would simply be lit up here.
-
[Buyout] Alexander Wennberg
kloubek replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Thats a big risk to rely on him as a 2c after two substandard years. Whether by choice or necessity, he's become a more defensive, 2 way player of late as opposed to the pure scorer he used to be. I actually see him better as a 3c on a good team. Like ours. -
I think that sentiment is different. That's just the "aw, I liked that guy" feeling. But he grew up a Canucks fan, worked hard to get noticed and signed with the team he loved. Then he works his ass off for years, only to be essentially told he was fired. I don't think it's about money - apparently the Canucks never even offered him less. It's just that his dream appears about to end, and I can't help feel for the guy. And yes, you can say he will still be employed elsewhere, and yes, he makes millions but he's still human and this has gotta suck for him.
-
Super sad to see Stecher go. Heart and soul guy who always gives his best and bleeds blue and green. Always has, since a little kid. He may not be the most talented player to leave our team, but to me at least, this is one of the saddest departures since I started following the team back in 1991 if he does, in fact leave. Unfortunately, size always was and always will be an issue. Wonder what Benning's plan is for the right side now. Rafferty? Maybe the plan is just to remove his arbitration rights and give him a look-see around the league. I wouldn't be surprised if he still ends up re-signing with us for a discount.
-
I get what he is saying though. Our cap situation and potential needs change depending on what goes down with OEL. I'm willing to bet that if it wasn't for the OEL discussions and Benning working hard to acquire him that we would have already re-signed a UFA or two by now.
-
[Buyout] Kyle Turris, Steven Santini
kloubek replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
For the right price, I could totally see Turris here as our 3c if Green is willing to have a more offensive 3rd line instead of a defensive one. Move Gaudette (and his poor faceoffs) to the wing and hopefully he won't look so lost when play ramps up in the playoffs. Move Sutter or Beagle to save cap. I'm on board. Again, for the right price. If we got him for say, 2m, and moved out Sutter at 4.5, the savings are not insignificant. It's not a long term solution, but besides Gaudette (who I really think would do better on wing) we really don't have a long term solution for our bottom 6 centers as it is anyway. -
Oh good lord. You just keep going don't you? Like your opinion MUST be shared by all or risk belittlement. That must be a difficult life to lead if you act this way in real life. You are hardly worth my time, but I will make one last go of it here. It is clear to see the difference in commitment between Gaudette and Virtanen. It's bloody night and day both on and off the ice. "Most would be excited". Actually, you are in the minority of those excited by this point. In fact, "most" agree that Jake does not give his all. Hence, the widespread frustration with him across CDC. This is not "blind bias". I have been rooting for Jake since he was drafted, and wishing the best for him. He has all the tools to be an effective player. He simply... isn't. Yes he is improving, but that's in spite of his commitment - not because of it. He will never be the player he can be until he turns that corner and decides to give it his all. He could be an invaluable part of the third line and perhaps even a mainstay on the 2nd. Instead, he is a spare part. And as a side note, how do you think his team views him when he isn't committed? How did they feel when he risked playing in the playoffs to go clubbing? Do you think his attitude helps or hinders how close knit the team is? If you've ever played professional sport (or even if you have common sense) the answer to that question is clear. If there is any "blind bias" in this debate, it's certainly not coming from my side.
-
So smug. So his 3 points in 16 playoff games is good for you then. The fact that despite his speed and size, he was virtually invisible and a non-factor in the playoffs and that's just fine, because he is "consistently improving". Gotcha. And with improvement, maybe he will get a whopping 4 points next playoffs, which would be just fine for you, I imagine. Not to mention all the off-ice BS. It's all good, right? He's improving. I'm afraid I don't share your acceptance of mediocrity. I prefer our players to play with heart and passion, and to make a difference to help us win a cup.
-
Bad comparables. Kassian needed to get in an bad accident, nearly lose his chance of playing in the NHL, and get clean. Miller was stuck behind a deep top 6 in Tampa. I believe Jake can and will still improve, but if he hasn't had his "ah ha" moment yet, what will it take? Us qualifying him is probably interpreted as a reward for his indifferent play and we will see much of the same until he's traded.
-
..and thats fine, IF he keeps playing. A (hopefully) healthy Ferland can be a difference maker.
-
Right. Retention. Thx. Due to the actual money involved (or lack of), Arizona doesn't actually gain the full value of retention because they aren't gonna care about the actual cap. I know they want to shed actual paid salary, but it's pretty darn low in the first place. And if they choose to play Loui (I imagine they would on a rebuilding team) they don't have to pay another 4th line plug, saving them nearly a million right there.
-
LE is only .5m? Thought it was 3m and 1m or something. Your adds make sense from our perspective. Given our leverage, is there no way to get this done without that 1st? I'd be happy to provide any prospects not named Hoglander or Podkolzin in return...
-
Not really. Just with Hall and OEL leaving alone puts them well under the cap. Cap is not at all an issue for them. Spending extra money while they start a full rebuild, is.
-
(Discussion) Marc Andre Fleury to the Canucks
kloubek replied to flickyoursedin's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Well geez. I misunderstood the whole scenario. Hard pass. Thanks for the link. -
[Rumour] Tyler Toffoli to hit free agency
kloubek replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Well Hoglander is left wing, so I imagine him as a Pearson replacement. Podkolzin is right wing so I can see that as a possibility, but I'm not sure he will be ready for such a role for another few years (as you said), and I really don't want to see us falter in the meantime. I imagine Benning doesn't want to see that either, as I believe he feels our window is now open. -
[Rumour] Tyler Toffoli to hit free agency
kloubek replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I don't think Toffoli is the be all end all for our team, but it was REALLY nice to have 2 full, top-six lines. It would be a real shame if we lost him, and certainly a step back on the scoring front. I believe we CAN clear the space - but Benning is doing the best he can to ensure it costs us as little as possible. I believe once the OEL situation plays out, we will see a lot more movement with our UFAs. -
(Discussion) Marc Andre Fleury to the Canucks
kloubek replied to flickyoursedin's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
I actually think Fleury at half price plus a second isn't that bad of a deal. He didn't have a great year, but there was a lot going on and I wouldn't be surprised if his mind wasn't 100% in it like it has been in the past. If we were looking to sign a GOOD backup, we would be looking in the high 2's, low 3's anyway. I believe Fleury is still a #1 goalie (albiet maybe not quite as good as he used to be) and would be great alongside Demko for a couple of years, after which time I imagine Dipietro would be suitable to become Demko's backup. The 2 years left is really quite perfect for us. If we were planning on letting Marky walk, I would be happy to see a 2nd and, say, a 4th, 50% retained. Then we can trade Marky's rights to whoever wants to speak to him prior to free agency for something as well. -
Loui is the exception, not the rule. It happens sometimes, but it's not common to see an offensive player just completely forget how to play hockey. I've read from multiple sources that the consensus is that OEL should have some longevity in his game. But it is fair enough to assume the last 2-3 years may not be as cost effective. I don't think Benning and co are too concerned about that far in advance. They are looking no more than 3 years ahead. This trade is about us winning. Now.
-
Really? Sucks? Now, don't get me wrong- he is not a standout. He's had injury trouble too. But he battles reasonably hard, is a leader in the room, puts up ok numbers in his limited role, and yes - he is great at faceoffs. I think we could do a lot worse. Is he overpaid? Sure. But to say he sucks and to liken his contract value to that of Loui's is a wee stretch.
-
I wouldn't say it's unknown what we would be getting, nor do I agree its too much about luck. Benning did excellent with assessing both Pearson and Miller. He has done well in that regard lately. He wasn't quite as good with the vets he brought in early on, but has been solid since and has always been a pretty good assessment of still-ripe talent. If he feels OEL is a good fit, I believe he would be. And I believe he would perform equal if not better in our system. It's a lot to take on, but a 2nd offensive weapon on the back end will do wonders. Not only that, but if this is a means to ease the cap burden (and it is) then I think this could be a savvy acquisition. Especially if Benning does a good job prying a deal out of Arizona, who really do want to blow it all up and are in a crappy position given OEL's demands.
-
[proposal] Benning’s realistic dream defense?
kloubek replied to Patel Bure's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Easy. He is suggesting that's the LD *Benning* is looking to assemble, and I agree that's what it appears. If this trade goes through, it's Hughes, OEL, and Edler. Unless they switch Hughes to RD? Unlikely. If the OEL trade goes through, I see the need for only 1 young LD to fill in for injury and replace Edler in a year (if he doesn't even re-sign, which he well may). As such, it actually makes sense for one of them to be dangled. Or, more likely, shipped to Arizona as part of the EL trade because we are gonna have to give up something of value, no matter how you look at it. And on the right side, he said "committed to Stecher". Well, with Myers and Tanev (or Tanev's defensive-minded replacement), there's not much room there either. Only 1 RD required to again back up or replace in future, or if, say, Myers got taken in the ED. That's why I figure we keep Rafferty, and consider Tryamkin in a year. It's not like we would completely raid the D of prospects. We just qualified a few, so we have cheap guys available still as an 8th on either side. (And not so cheap in Benn if we can't move him) This team is close to being a contender, and sometimes sacrifices of young guys are required to win now. Especially with a flat cap, at least 3-4 bad contracts to move, a very active GM trying to make the team better now, and win now. It's not like anyone suggested trading Podz or Hogs. When you have parts to spare as we would on D, it's asset management. -
[proposal] Benning’s realistic dream defense?
kloubek replied to Patel Bure's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Barrie is fine if you can pair him with a shutdown guy like Tanev. There is no denying his ability to put up points with the right team. Toronto wasn't the right team, apparently. He must be a somewhat buy-low proposition, which is still risky for us to commit to, given our need for better D and cap woes. If he isn't able to put up points, that's a massive screw up from our perspective with precious cap. We also don't have a 2nd elite defensive defenseman, as Hughes needs one too on the right in order to cover during his heroics. Barrie does nothing for making our d stronger or harder to play against either. As already mentioned, I'm also not crazy about Rathbone and/or OJ not having ice time this year. Maybe during injury? But otherwise, I think OEL is a better fit. I think he would thrive on our team. -
I think for their first big contract, close to 10m is out of the question. They can make that on their next contract, and will probably be worth it. For now, both need to gain strength and experience and will probably not be in their true prime for another 3 years. I expect Pettersson to get a bit more than Hughes, but that is because he has a larger frame to grow into and once he does, I believe he will be in the top 10 players in the entire NHL and slightly ahead as far as his overall, complete game goes. Huggy needs to gain strength too, but he will always be small along with the detriment of being so. I would like to see contracts as long as possible as to maximize value, but not actually maximum length yet. This way, they are both guaranteed a big payday at the end of their current contracts, but our team gets a break while cap is the biggest issue. Finally, the fact Benning focuses strongly on character players also means they are more likely to take a bit less to help build our team. So with all that said.... Hughes: 6x6.25 Pettersson: 6x6.75 Full ntc/nmc for both. Point out that McKinnon only makes 6.3....
-
This. The idea for most GMs is to maximize stars on ELCs. We have other contracts coming up in relatively short order, so it looks like Benning (inspired by the playoff performance) believes our window is now open, and is trying to make us a contender before we have to jettison a core player. The challenge is that we are up against the cap NOW, so he is gonna have to do some fancy cap shedding. By moving out a bad contract but assuming OEL's contract, he effectively gains a top 4 d while giving up not a ton. This is probably the best way to do it, as a simple cap dump to another team with nothing coming back is likely too costly. (See: Marleau). I still find it odd why a few certain teams like Ottawa aren't all over Eriksson. Little actual dollars paid, a vet guy to teach the young players, a servicable defensive bottom 6 guy (on a bad team) AND a nice high cap hit to reach the cap floor. Then they also get a sweetener prospect or two. Seems like a no brainer to me from the perspective of both teams.
-
If Benning feels Brogan is worth a shot in the bigs (and I do), it could very well look like: Hughes - Dillon OEL - Myers Edler - Rafferty Dillon is a better shutdown guy than some realize. He may be no Tanev, but he plays far bigger and I think the tradeoff wouldn't be THAT bad. Saves maybe 1.5m cap? Plus, this D should be able to be on the offensive more than the one this past season.