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

wallstreetamigo

Members
  • Posts

    16,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by wallstreetamigo

  1. I dont think Hamonic is a bad player. He actually adds some things our defense overall is lacking. I just dont think he is the longer term solution to play with Hughes. And neither are Schmidt or Myers. Thats a huge issue for me. Hughes needs a true top pairing quality guy beside him. One of Myers, Schmidt, or Hamonic woukd need to go next summer at the longest to make that a reality. Both those other guys have term and would be more difficult to trade. So committing term to Hamonic now essentially locks in the right side as is and imo its not set up to support the guy they are building around. If we had a Juolevi-Hamonic I think that could be an effective pair. Even Rathbone-Hamonic could go a long way to giving us a solid 6 deep group. But neither happens if it means Myers or Schmidt is with Hughes. The only option of the 3 imo is Hamonic. And to be competitive and get the most out of Hughes, his partner longer term needs to be better than that.
  2. I am perfectly fine having Hughes, Juolevi, and Rathbone on the left side next year and seeing what they can do with it. Let Edler walk and if Hamonic wants more than 1 year at sub 2 mil, let him walk too. Schmidt and Myers on the right with those guys is serviceable for now. Shaw should be able to build decent balanced pairings and tweak the system to get more out of what we have. If you can get a guy like Larsson on a good deal, do it. Otherwise replace Hamonic with someone inexpensive. Maybe Jordie Benn would sign a cheap 1 year deal to come back. But there are a lot of cheaper options available out there. No need to overpay Hamonic imo.
  3. If he can add a younger, quality core age player or two to the group this offseason, move out some cap, and incrementally improve on the bottom 6 and D depth, I would consider that a win for year 1. Given that this is a team with important core players in 3 distinct age groups spanning a lot of years, the margin for error is pretty thin if competing with this core intact is the goal. The time might very well come that a decision on older vets or really young core players will need to be made. I could see a scenario where the Canucks have to reset a little bit and move some guys like Miller, Horvat, Schmidt, etc. for younger core guys and other assets then focus around the current 21-22 y/o core group. EP, Hoglander, Hughes, Podkolzin, etc. Or trade for 25-27 y/o core guys using Hughes, picks, prospects, etc. to support the older core. There are a lot of holes to fill to be competitive. To go more all in this offseason, it will likely cost Benning assets or decreased trade returns to move out the cap necessary. Next summer he will have a lot of cap. So I know for me I would rather not see guys like Sutter, Edler, Hamonic, etc getting term deals at this point. Thats why I didnt like the Pearson signing. Good player but not a core guy and needs to be improved on to get more out of Horvat. Term right now should only be going to core guys and high level support players. Not "adequate" guys. Next summer should be the fill in stage. If we can get a true 3C or, in the absence of that, a top 6 quality offensive winger to then use EP, Miller, and Horvat as centers, that will help a lot. I think a top physical dman that can play with Hughes is a must. But the only one I see who would be reasonable as a UFA is Larsson. And it would likely take too much to sign him.
  4. Benning should not be in the hot seat to make huge moves right now. Aquilini trusted him enough to keep him. Dont push him into making panic moves to keep his job. Let him take a 2 offseason approach. Get the critical business with EP and Hughes sorted out, look for pre expansion trades for younger guys who can grow with the core, sign some 1year placeholder inprovements and maybe a high quality 3C if one can be had for a reasonable cost. Trade 1 year contract guys at the deadline if you arent in a clear playoff spot. Next offseason should be all about having a ton of cap space and assets to use to open the competitive window.
  5. If a UFA is being signed to any term and top 4 dollars, it should be someone better than Hamonic. Letting Edler and Hamonic walk and signing a guy like Larsson would be a better way to go. Or re-sign Hamonic or a replacement level guy for 1 year at a cheap cap hit, roll with what we already have for a year, and go after a top pairing guy next offseason. The path to improvement for the Canucks this offseason should be far more about incremental improvement at key positions - depth D and bottom 6 guys on reasonable deals. Then swing for the fences with core supporting signings next offseason. Imho
  6. If the ask is 3 yr x 4 mil, no thanks. Let him walk. These are exactly the kind of contracts for "adequate" players that Benning must avoid at all costs.
  7. Having to sign with the Oilers would make me want to retire, so you are forgiven for the honest mistake lol.
  8. With Gallant signing, the expectation is going to be major improvement and playoffs next year. Schmidt would be a great fit there imo. Now that Aquilini has kept Benning, I would much prefer he not have him on the hot seat right from the start to go all out this offseason. You trusted the guy to stay, let him take a targeted approach this year with an eye on next summer for big changes. My trust in Benning would increase exponentially if he doesnt make a bunch of short sighted, long term mistakes trying to make the playoffs next season. I am not a huge fan but Aquilini made his choice. The path to next offseason is pretty clear imo. Playoffs this year should be a bice to have, not the end goal. Next summer there will be huge opportunity to $&!#kick this core's window open if he plays his cards right.
  9. I would rather let Edler and Hamonic walk, play Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi full time on the left side to see what they do with it and use some of those dollars to sign a RHD to play with Hughes. If you cant get the guy you want at a reasonable cap hit, sign a 3rd pairing placeholder for 1 year, flip him at the deadline, and revamp the D next summer. Hamonic at 1.5 for 1 year is fine by me. I say avoid term, premium dollars, and trade protection at all costs. Flip him for assets if the season goes sideways. I dont want to see Hughes partner being Hamonic for much longer. Nice to have at a low cap hit but we dont need more Beagle/Roussel type contracts for non core players.
  10. I could see them being interested in Schmidt. Not sure I see a fit for the Canucks based on Benning wanting to make the playoffs next year though. I would be good getting back a couple of young guys but I am not sure Benning would.
  11. Vegas will not be re-signing and will release the following players: F Brad Richardson D Nikita Nesterov F Luke Glendening F Adam Henrique F Derek Stepan F Carl Gunnarsson F Nolan Vesey F Michael Frolik D Blake Hillman
  12. They will. But they are pretty good at filling holes effectively.
  13. Test #1 for Benning. But I think the Canucks actually have more leverage than it seems here. Cant think of another team where he gets consistent top 4 time with a guy like Hughes. Benning should just show him a picture of Anson Carter.
  14. I have a feeling there will be some good contracts signed there. I mean, i kind of hope not but my gut says there will be a few team friendly deals.
  15. But I am willing to become more of a Benning fan, even a little bit, if he makes a bunch of solid moves this summer that sets the teamup to swing for the fences next offseason. Its really alli can promise. But it feels like something lol
  16. Exactly Gotta resist chasing replaceable guys with too much money or term or nmc. Call his bluff Jim.
  17. Good negotiating tactic by his agent. Puts the pressure on Benning. Mistake though if he bites. Hamonic is entirely replaceable. Nice to have but need to have? Nope. 1.5 mil or less otherwuse have fun in Buffalo or whoever else signs you. The good news is now Benning can completely remove any nmc or ntc from the negotiations since Hamonic no longer cares about where he plays.
  18. Maybe that just your perception though? You dont think I ever post anything optimistic at all? I actually do. A lot. But the same crowd of people attribute negativity to me no matter what I say. Even where there is none. Like this conversation for instance. Started by an innocuous comment that leaving EP without a contract too long could invite an offer sheet. Not that it would, or it will, or what % likelihood there is that it would, simply stating a fact that it is possible. Take a look at the responses to that. Apparently that amounts to hating on Benning, inferring a bunch of negative things, etc. When it did none of that. It just stated a simple fact. Its just how people choose to view anything I say, which is what it is. A lot of times what I post is immediately attacked, even when optimistic. I find it funny that someone who is well liked can say exactly the same thing almost verbatim and be endlessly praised for such an optimistic view. A few of those guys and I actually have a good laugh about that in PM's. I am an opinionated person that is not a rah rah Benning fan. I am a Canucks fan first, not a Benning fan first. I understand and accept that with that comes that persona of being a villain who you all hate. And I am cool with that. It wont make me change who I am or what my opinions are. If people want to disagree or discuss things, I enjoy that. If they just want to attack me thats fine too.
  19. If he was available I probably would consider him first too. But Colorado would have a much easier time being able to match and it would probably have to be 4 first round picks to even have a chance.
  20. Fair points but I dont think that would stop Seattle if they really thought they could pull it off. I am very hopeful the Canucks dont share their affiliate with anyone else. We saw how well that worked for them with St Louis. Abbotsford should be 100% about whats best for Canucks prospects.
  21. Exactly what I have been saying. Nowhere in this whole conversation did I say it was likely. I never assigned any probability to it at all actually. I just said it was possible and that an argument could be made that this offseason could be a unique opportunity for Seattle that would not be available in any other years. Not every RFA is eligible for an offer sheet. And the vast majority that are would not be worth an offer sheet anyway. They really only make sense for star players that are expensive to acquire other ways. If you look at the number of RFA guys who ever made it to the point of an offer sheet being possible while also being actually worth sending one, the percentage based on 1 being signed would be significantly higher than that.
×
×
  • Create New...