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 am not an Eriksson fan. I would love to see him opt out of his contract. And I am not defending him. I am defending the process that was agreed to in the CBA around guaranteed contracts. Dont want that risk? Dont sign that contract.
  2. Thats why the nhlpa wanted guaranteed contracts though. And they got them. So suggesting a player owes the team to opt out of his contract is not realistic. If Eriksson had become a consistent 100 point player would you be saying the team should let him opt out of his contract so that he could earn 7 or 8 million instead? Of course not. The risk with guaranteed contracts cuts both ways. In the real world Benning would have been fired too for terrible financial management.
  3. Neither have the Canucks though. Eriksson was really never utilized to his strengths from day 1. It was obvious to some he wasnt the right fit when he was signed based on how Boston utilized him to get the most out of him. The whole idea of guaranteed contracts is that the player has no obligation to terminate simply because the team wants him to. So your theory is that Eriksson signed the contract with the goal of not playing well and simply collecting a paycheque? The fact he didnt fit and didnt play well is the risk that comes with a long term guaranteed contract. Look at how the Canucks have treated Eriksson though on the flip side of that. Its been a gong show on both sides. Eriksson and Benning signed a contract. Saying Eriksson has no integrity because he wont let Benning off the hook isnt really fair.
  4. As frustrating as Eriksson has been, I dont blame him at all for not terminating his contract and giving up on millions of dollars. Literally no one here would do so in the sane situation. The ire directed at Eriksson is deserved for how he has played. But the ire for giving him such a terrible contract in the first place is squarely on Benning.
  5. I am not anticipating anything one way or the other. Simply saying its a possibility. There are lots of examples of him dragging things out and increasing the risk. And others where he didnt. You also ignore the fact that its not just up to Benning if a deal gets done early. EP and his agent could not like what they are being offered and hold out to see if an offer sheet is presented. As a side note, if there was any player Benning should have waited to sign, it was Pearson. Gave out a prime deal and used up an expansion spot unnecessarily on a player in the middle of a serious regression. I dont count that as a plus for Benning.
  6. I dont think Edmonton will drop off all that much. They already rely on McD and Drai a ton. They dont have to improve a ton to still be a playoff team. If they make the wrong moves then maybe but I think they will still be pretty good. The Kraken arent going to be stacked like Vegas I dont think, but I feel they will have a good NHL roster. They will have a lot of cap space to use to supplement the expansion draft selections.
  7. Maybe its possible that both Barzal and Petterssen are fantastic young players. Dragging one down and minimizing their play diesnt raise the other one up. If I were the Kraken I would absolutely consider an offer sheet for EP if Benning lets him twist in the wind long enough. Its no lose for them. They get EP for pretty cheap or they force the Canucks to spend more cap than they want to in order to keep him.
  8. Its possible. But thats also going on the assumption that the Oilers, Flames, Ducks, etc cant also improve. And that the Kraken will be bad too. The Canucks have a lot of work to do to be competitive.
  9. The only prediction about Eichel I am willing to make at this point is that whatever team trades a huge haul for him and his contract is going to almost instantly regret it.
  10. Thats a fair point but they did bring back the rest of the staff so that suggests they didnt feel much pressure to make changes. I would have let Baumgartner go before Brown. But I think realistically both should have gone. Brown is a good coach in many ways but just went stale. It happens. Baumgartner just seems like he is not an effective coach at all. Shaw is a good add. The other new guy I know nothing about. Seems like maybe he just has some connection to Benning or Green to get the job and its not clear what he will actually be doing. Would have much rather seen another experienced voice added.
  11. Thats my thought on it too. I believe he can and will improve significantly. Just not sure betting the farm on it with his second contract isnt a needlessly risky move.
  12. Hughes is a fantastic offensive player. But he is a terrible defensive player. He will improve for sure but he is not there yet and its impossible to know how much his offense will be impacted by being expected to play effective defense. Right now, 5 on 5 at least, a good amount of his offensive creativity comes at the expense of good defense. He has to show he can do both to earn a top level long term deal imho.
  13. Lots of teams wouldnt. Very few teams have given long term, #1 dman money contracts to guys who have not shown even a reasonable ability to play defense at the NHL level. I would be interested to hear which teams have given long term top dollar 2nd contracts to offense only dmen. Hughes is overrated as an overall dman based solely on his offense. But he is a defenseman at the end of the day, so playing defense adequately is kind of a thing. And until he improves to even average levels of defensive ability, my opinion is you dont skip the bridge contract with him. Those are the contracts that bite teams later.
  14. And I know people think I am a hater but to me that would be just fine. This is not the year to go for it. Thats next summer. Sign 1 year placeholder guys, get another good prospect in the draft this year, trade expiribg vets at the deadline to stock up on tradable assets, then use all the cap soace snd assets to go get the half dozen guys you will need to complement the core. I will be happy if the Canucks do this. And would even jump on the dont fire Benning train for not making the playoffs this year and instead setting up for next summer. To me, this would equal Benning learning from his previous mistakes actually.
  15. So, if the best case scenario happened in every way for the Canucks they might have made the playoffs? Seems like that would be true for any team. Making the playoffs or not isnt a win to anyone but the owners pocketbook. Lets be clear on that. Because without significant, fundamental changes, the Canucks are not an actual contender. They wont luck their way to a cup just by making the playoffs as no team ever has and this team inspires no confidence they could be the ones to buck that trend. The reality is they played in easily the worst division in hockey and were terrible. In a better division, which they likely will be in next year, they have a lot of work to do to improve at all. I think its entirely possible the Canucks end up close to the bottom of the league again. It wil take a lot of improvement to move up.
  16. I dont hate Benning. I hate wasting cap on average players based on spotty pro scouting that thinks actual skill is less important than some non provable intangibles. Its not top 6 money on its own. In combination with every other 500k or 1 mil overpayment though it adds up pretty quickly. Its just a waste of top 6 money and a spot on a guy who really isnt good enough to be in the top 6 on any team hoping to contend and whose numbers tank so significantly without Horvat that he has to now be tethered to him for 3 more years in order to justify overpaying him. Its not a coincidence that many around the NHL world were shocked Benning gave him that contract, especially in a non competitive situation. That 3 plus million could have been used to get a long way toward an actual upgrade who is a top 6 player. Or a top D partner for Hughes. Or an actually effective 3rd line center. Or hell they could have kept Toffoli and shipped out Pearson, which probably should have happened. Pearson had a career year sandwiched between two terrible years. Make all the excuses you want, its simply a fact that 20% of those career year points came with an empty net. Sell high on guys like that, dont re-sign them especially in the middle of a season they are regressing so badly despite some of the most advantageous opportunity on the team. Every dollar counts. And now we wasted that money on a guy who has to be tethered to, and will likely continue to drag down Horvat. Look at their numbers together and apart, Horvat isnt the one who needs Pearson by any stretch. I would be interested to hear one contending team that anyone thinks would have Pearson in their top 6 and on their #1 pp unit. My guess would be none of them. And his numbers were bad WITH that opportunity 2 of the past 3 years (and very overrated due to EN points in the other one). What will they look like if he drops to a 3rd line without Horvat and Hoglander? So if the goal is to actually contend, you have to improve on guys like that in roles that dont help the team and at dollars that dont make sense based on what they bring.
  17. Absolutely perfect summary of the situation Sid. I dont see the Canucks making it work without big changes and sacrifices elsewhere on the roster.
  18. You can ice a team full of 6'2" 205+ guys and still not play physical or tough and still be terrible defensively. Do the Canucks need more size and strength on D? Of course. But the main thing they need is guys who are actually effective and can play at a high level no matter what their size. If Hughes is a guy they are building around (which he should be) then they clearly need to find him a specific, complementary long term partner to get the best out of him. Ideally a guy who can play at a very high level defensively, can chip in offensively, has the booming, accurate shot Hughes doesnt, and who can add a physical element in the D zone. To me, that sounds an awful lot like a true #1 dman.
  19. There are very few actual comparables for Hughes. Most are a bit lower on the points end but much more effective on the defensive end of the ice. He is very one dimensional and his offensive chances often come at the expense of his defensive play. He has along way to go to be a true #1 D. Lots of rosk signing him to big money and term right now imo.
  20. Not sure a long term, big money deal for Hughes is a good idea at this point. If there was ever a player who should be on a reasonable bridge contract to show they can improve enough defensively to be a true #1 guy before getting a monster contract, its Hughes. I think both should be on bridge deals tbh. But woukd be far more comfortable locking EP up at this point.
  21. Would not be sad to see both go if it means term and nmc for either. Anything more than 1 year is too long for either, especially with no opportunity to trade or waive them.
  22. What he deserves and what he gets are two very different things. A nmc alone makes him a hard no to me. Same with Hamonic. You dont give guys like that nmc imo at this point.
  23. This year is likely going to be another writeoff anyway. May as well hold all the chips to go all in next summer.
  24. He broke the top 6 bank. No chance they have him anywhere but top 6 with that deal. They have to keep him where he is. Pearsons contract itself isnt bad. Its one more in the cap death by 1000 cuts though. I doubt Edler signs for 2 to 2.5 mil. Find other placeholders for cheaper that dont require nmc so you have the option to deal them at the deadline.
×
×
  • Create New...