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

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

Members
  • Posts

    10,799
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

  1. Pretty much. Except for this: With a few additions, you can pull off a quick yakisoba that’s pretty decent. It’s basically stir fried noodles though, and not a soup. But ichiban ramen is trash, imo. Any grocery store with a decent Asian section should have at least a dozen better options.
  2. Not a fan of the cup/bowl style noodles, as I always taste the container, whether it’s made of plastic or styrofoam. When I do eat the cup/bowl noodles, I take everything out and prepare them in a pot. Usually add in a bunch of stuff—veggies, sauces, spices, meats, etc—and lately cracking a raw egg in at the end (and letting the soup cook it lightly, and then breaking open that runny yolk) is kinda my thing. And adding hot sauce. Lots of hot sauce, even if it’s already a “spicy” version.
  3. We must be reading different reports then. From Drance (The Athletic): https://theathletic.com/1845528/2020/05/29/autonomy-and-a-breakdown-in-trust-why-judd-brackett-is-leaving-the-canucks/ EDIT: Even in Judd’s own words: ”Unfortunately an agreement on the level of input going forward with regard to staff personnel and process could not be reached”
  4. Judd Brackett is a long way from being at the same level as Al Murray or Trevor Timmons. And as far as giving up control, here are a couple examples of how scouting department hirings worked in Tampa Bay: https://www.thespec.com/sports/hamilton-region/2011/06/21/when-stevie-y-called-he-said-yes.html https://www.syracuse.com/crunch/2018/06/ex-syracuse_crunch_captain_lands_new_job_with_tampa_bay_lightning.html In Montreal, Timmons has run amateur scouting and the draft under 4 GMs, but in that time, he’s watched as stuff like this has happened: http://intentionaloffside.com/?p=1408 Bergevin certainly defers to Timmons often during the draft (similar to how we saw Benning work with Brackett), but the current Habs GM also feels free to hire and fire scouts as he wishes: http://allhabs.net/headlines-bergevin-kinsella-fan-power-mortenson/ I could go on with this, but I think the point has been made. GMs don’t give up full control of amateur scouting departments to their directors of amateur scouting, especially when it comes to personnel decisions. The type of autonomy that Brackett was reported to have been seeking would really be unprecedented for a director of scouting. Even guys like Murray and Timmons, with decades of experience (and holding titles like AGM, in addition to their director title), have to report to their GM, and have to make decisions in consultation with their GM, and sometimes get overruled entirely by their GM, especially when it comes to hiring/firing scouts.
  5. I’m definitely on board. Loui’s owed what, $8 million more on his contract? Get him to mutually terminate and then hire him as the new Director of Amateur Scouting for two years at $4 million a year. Sure, he’d probably be the highest paid scout in the NHL by about 10X the next guy’s salary, but it’d be worth it. Better value than what we’re getting on the ice, anyway. Added bonus would be that nobody will be upset if Benning and Weisbrod try to do his job for him. EDIT: Could also hire Eriksson to be our new Director of Pro Scouting. His only duties would be to identify free agents and trade targets that remind him of himself, and then advise Benning to stay the hell away from them. He might actually be worth $4 million a year doing that job!
  6. I hear what you’re saying, and I’m definitely one of the people who’d love to have the ability to jump into a parallel universe where MG was allowed to rebuild, kept his team with Gilman and Henning, and Crawford was given several drafts with early picks and high pick volume. It’s quite possible (though far from guaranteed) that in that reality, we’re already long since rebuilt and now contending. But in our reality, Gillis got ****canned and we hired JB. It’s the new guy’s prerogative to build his own team. It’s no surprise that the “night of the long knives” happened and the Gillis loyalists were purged from the organization. The Linden thing, yeah, maybe a betrayal, but who knows the full story, really. As for Brackett, sometimes there’s just not enough room at the top. It seems all but confirmed that he wanted autonomy in running amateur scouting, and that just doesn’t happen in the NHL, unless your scouting director also happens to be the GM/AGM or a maybe Hockey Ops VP, etc. Otherwise, the director reports to the GM. And if Brackett wasn’t happy in that role and the chain of command, he needed to move on, and seek a GM/AGM position with another team. Can’t really blame Benning for not giving into that kind of demand. It would be pretty much unprecedented and would really undermine his authority, and in one of the areas where he’s arguably the most capable.
  7. Definitely overhyped, when it comes to Brackett’s individual impact. I think if you look back to around 2012, you see the beginnings of our improved process and performance at the draft. That 2012 Draft yielded Gaunce and Hutton. People will scoff, but that’s actually pretty decent for a draft with only five picks and picking very late in the rounds. Sure the Mallet pick was idiotic for a second rounder, but overall, not a bad draft, given our limited picks. 2013, you see the first draft under Eric Crawford and Gillis’s revamped scouting department. We only have Horvat to show for it (still a great pick obviously), but the process behind picking Shinkaruk, Cassels, and Subban is a clear improvement (these picks are all “near misses” and you can sense we’re starting to zero in on target). 2014 is basically still a Gillis draft, as far as the scouting personnel, and Eric Crawford running the department. Benning probably gets credit for the first round (as most new GMs do), but the Day 2 picks are being made by the department he inherited from MG, and the scouts do rather well, finding three NHL players in Demko, Tryamkin, and Forsling. 2015, it’s still Eric Crawford running the department that season, although he’ll be fired less than a week after the draft. Brackett is nowhere to be found on draft day. Judd isn’t on the floor or on the stage for the Boeser pick. We come away with Boeser, Brisebois, Gaudette, and Jasek. Two career NHLers and two more prospects who might join them eventually. Great overall result, especially with a late first and no second rounder. 2016 is Brackett’s first kick at the can. Benning is said to have forced the Juolevi pick. Maybe that’s true. Maybe not. So far nothing much to show from that draft, although I expect Juolevi and Lockwood will play NHL, and maybe even Ābols might eventually get a cup of coffee (although not with us). 2017, the gold standard Brackett draft. Really exciting picks. Pettersson, obviously, but also the process improvements really seem to be bearing fruit now. Picks seem to be going after skill, and lining up well with data-driven approaches. Also helps to have two second round picks, and eight picks on total. Really nice draft and seems like the scouting department is humming along. 2018, Hughes basically falls in our laps, so nobody gets a gold star for that pick, but you still see really good process leading to us taking Woo and Madden, and also making bets on guys like Utunen and Manukyan. 2019, the relationships are apparently souring, Linden is out (and Brackett reportedly loses a “protector”), and Benning and Weisbrod, right or wrong, are supposedly looking to flex their muscles, pushing back against Brackett’s autonomy, and reportedly start fiddling with the draft board. Whatever the case, the results, so far, look really good. Another strong draft. Podkolzin and Höglander look like steals (although you could argue they both fell to us and were no brainers). But the rest of the picks (other than zero defenceman) look like great bets and seem to suggest that the overall process remains strong, even with Brackett “sidelined” and JimJohn getting more hands on. If the 2019 draft is a sign of things to come, sign me up, because I really liked what they did last year. Too early to say, but that draft has a legitimate shot of producing several quality NHL players. Overall, it’s been a continuum dating back several years, and IMO even preceding Benning, that’s seen our scouting department strengthened and our draft results improve. We’ve seen some great results under two scouting directors (Crawford 2013-15 and Brackett 2016-19) and also great results in draft years when those scouting directors were being phased out (2015 and 2019). This really speaks to the strength of the overall group, and the leadership at the top. I don’t believe our drafting/scouting success is based on any one person, or that it will be compromised by the loss of any one person. We kept improving and refining the process, starting with Gillis, and then really showing results under Benning. Our scouting department was successful under Crawford, and after he was fired, found success under Brackett, and we will likely continue to be successful now that Brackett is moving on.
  8. Well, hopefully, if our draft results change, it’ll just be because we’re a better team and no longer getting to pick in the top-10. EDIT: I think we’ll be better able to judge Brackett’s impact by comparing Day 2 Draft results (rounds 2-7), but that conversation can’t really happen until around a decade from now. Under Brackett, we’ve drafted some very promising prospects from our Day 2 picks, but only Gaudette, Brisebois, and DiPietro have actually played NHL games. Remains to be seen how the others turn out (although I expect about a dozen of our 2015-19 Day 2 picks to play some number of NHL games). That said, you can look at 2014 (the last Eric Crawford draft) and see the first five players we picked have all played NHL games. Judd hasn’t met that mark yet (although I think 2017 will be close, once all those prospects have fully developed), and we recovered just fine from dumping Crawford, so I expect we’ll be OK without Brackett.
  9. Did Benning specifically mention Ryan Biech? Maybe Biecher will be running the draft table for 2021? Then again, before the reshuffle and promotion, Brackett was just a part-time USHL scout, so you never know... I’m gonna miss Brackett. I’m sure he’ll have no problem landing a new job though. And while he was very successful in his role, he’s hardly irreplaceable. In fact, here’s one option for replacing Judd: http://northeasternhockeyblog.com/northeastern-future-roster-huskies-projections-recruits/ That’s Northeastern’s recruitment chart for the next 4 years. It’s a good place to start. (I’m kidding... well, mostly )
  10. I agree, to a point. I love watching games where teams play hard, intense, physical hockey, but within the rules. And there’s no better game than one with long stretches of uninterrupted play, and a smooth flow to the action. But the rule book is there for a reason, and the best hockey is the game that’s played within those rules. If teams get so out of hand that they’re disrespecting the game, I’d rather see a parade to the penalty box, than the refs pocketing the whistles and letting things get completely out of hand. Not a fan of-tit-for-tat “makeup” calls and “game management” stuff, either. Just call the game fairly, and have the guts to hold dirty teams responsible, even if that means given the other team a 10-to-1 PP advantage. Even if it means power plays “decide” a playoff game. Ultimately, it’s the undisciplined teams that are deciding their own fate by playing outside the rules and suffering the consequences (or it should be, it the refs aren’t too chicken**** to hold dirty teams responsible).
  11. https://canucksarmy.com/2020/05/27/mcdonough/ Canucks Army article on McDonough, linked for those who don’t normally frequent the pages of CA. Some good quotes from Aidan in the piece. EDIT: Was especially happy to read how he’s itching to get back to Vancouver and BC, and also how he doesn’t seem to take school too seriously (always a nice perk with a college draftee and the free agency thing ).
  12. There’s even about a 1% chance that all three of the top-3 picks go to the placeholders. Obviously not the best odds of happening, but still could happen. I can just imagine phase one of the lottery and the big reveal comes when they pull out three “NHL” cards, and the look on faces of all 7 of the bottom teams GMs when they learn they are all moving back three spots. And then all the play-in teams learning they have a 37.5% chance of picking top-3. At that point, I’d almost hope we’d throw our series against Minny, and try for our 3/8 shot at a top-3 pick.
  13. I think it was Sat Shah. Reported that Brackett was offered two years and basically the same salary.
  14. Two of the original six teams were in 12th place (in their respective conferences). Coincidence that the league decided on a 24 team format?
  15. I just clued into the fact that the Canucks would need to win 19 playoff games to take home the Cup. Best of five plus 4 rounds of best of seven. So, we could, for the first time ever, win 16 games and lose the Cup. Heck, we could win 18 games and still lose. Wouldn't that be typical Canuck luck? Win 18 playoff games, only to lose, in Game 7 of the Finals, to one of the teams that had a bye and only won the standard 16 playoff games. We finish with the most wins of any team in the 2020 playoffs, but still lose the Cup.
  16. I think he’s a better player today too, than when he left. More mature, more seasoned, more experienced, more committed to his fitness, wiser to the expectations in the NHL, etc. I just don’t feel like he’s raised his value all that much. Generally speaking, when guys go over to Europe, they don’t add significant NHL value, as far as next contracts, unless they post eye-popping numbers, or show a significant upward trajectory. I agree there are reasons for optimism. And I’ve been pretty consistent in batting down claims by folks that seek to portray Tryamkin in the most negative light, whether that’s his “entitlement issues” or his quality of play. I’ve been a backer of Nik, over the past three seasons. And I still am. It just irks me to see people thinking we should just throw $3-4 million at Tryamkin, when it shouldn’t be necessary to spend anywhere near that much to get him back here. Sure, the rumours coming out suggest he wants $3+ million. Those are “feelers” coming from his camp. It’s an agent’s job to start high in any negotiation. Management starts low, and they meet in the middle. I guess it just rubs me the wrong way to see folks saying, just give Tryamkin his asking price and whatever term he wants. Why? This is not a player with that kind of negotiating power. Nowhere near it. And as far as the “we’re only talking about a difference of $1 million” argument, that money does matter. Every salary matters. Every negotiation matters. Paying too much for one player affects the next negotiation. It affects the overall salary structure. Certainly, in isolation, paying a million over market value on a single player will not break the bank. But habitually paying over market will significantly impact team building in a cap system. It’s management’s job to get the best value possible out of contracts. And I’m hopeful they will, in the case of Tryamkin.
  17. At first glance, I actually suspected “Marc Edge” was a parody account set up by some “statistics nerd” using a random boomer pic from google images and writing Benning fan fiction as some sort of joke for Canucks twitter. But he appears to be a real guy. And it appears that he’s writing his real opinions. Although after reading the first couple paragraphs of that piece, I’m still not 100% sure whether or not this is all an elaborate joke.
  18. ^^ The above post was tongue in cheek, but it’s definitely going to be a big loss whenever Tanev moves on. He’s been our most stabilizing and effective defensive Dman for years, but he’s also a huge presence off the ice—kinda the glue that holds the team together—and has become the honorary “Dad” to most of the young bucks. Of course, teams move on, evolve, and mature, and everyone can be replaced, but whenever Tanev walks, the team’s culture and character will be taking a significant hit. Not sure what kind of value you can place on that off-ice stuff, or if it’s worth the cost of his next extension (especially with our cap situation), but Tanev is definitely a big part of what makes our group so tight knit.
  19. I do worry about our prospects and young players, if and when Tanev finally leaves. Chris and Kendra are basically the billet parents for every young Canucks player. Don’t know how those kids are gonna keep themselves fed without regular dinners at “Dad’s” place.
  20. On a two year contract, fine by me. An AAV of $1.5-1.75M seems about right for Tryamkin. Probably not what you meant, though. * * * * * (The following section of this post is just general observation and not really directed at @aliboy, or anyone in particular) Honestly, when you look around for comparables, I have a hard time justifying Tryamkin getting a better deal than a guy like Jamie Oleksiak. 3 years, $2,137,500 AAV Oleksiak signed that deal as an RFA at age 25. He’s 6’7, 255 lbs. Was coming off a season where, after the trade to Pittsburgh, he averaged 17:24 TOI, and scored 14 points in 41 games. Oleksiak profiles like this: A huge defenseman with terrific reach and strength. Moves very well for a man his size. Has superb agility and athleticism. Oleksiak can deliver thunderous hits and uses his stick effectively to break up passes. He also has good hands and puck skills, which could see him blossom into a very solid two-way defenseman. (from Elite Prospects) Sound like anyone we know? Oleksiak hits as hard and often as Tryamkin, and he actually fights a lot more. He also scores more points, has better underlying numbers than Tryamkin in the NHL (both today and in 2017), has played on better teams, and has played (especially since the trade) in less sheltered roles. When Tryamkin was here, he averaged 16:52 TO/G, often in sheltered minutes, and on one of the worst teams (and defenses) in the league, and he scored 11 points in 79 games (over two seasons). So tell me again how that’s deserving of over $3 million a season? I’m the first to acknowledge that Tryamkin has the potential to be a very special player, but he’s proved nothing yet. At least nothing more than Jamie Oleksiak had proved when he earned his current three year deal. The deal Tryamkin was reportedly offered in 2017 (2 years @ $2 million AAV) was very fair at the time. Since then, Tryamkin really hasn’t done anything that should push his NHL value higher than it was when he left. I would agree that Nik is older, wiser, more mature, and in better shape than he was when he was here. Those are all great things. He’s also been away for three seasons. He had one really good KHL year (and I think his NHL value would have increased if he’d come back in 2018), and then two years of declining minutes and production. And also some rumours of questionable effort and motivation: “I don’t know what happened in a year, but something changed,” Sports-Express KHL insider Igor Eronko said earlier this year. “Nikita and I are well acquainted, I know him a lot, I’ve had some interviews with him so I know him as a person and as a hockey player. But something wasn’t good for him after that year. He was kind of not feeling in the right place and right position.” “He got the ‘C’ on the jersey and then the coach took it off later because of effort,” Eronko said. “The coach saw three or four other D, showing much better effort and he wants top determination from every player.” And here are Tryamkin’s KHL stats in black and white: So, has Tryamkin increased his NHL value by 50-75% in the three seasons he’s been away? For me, it’s a big no. He’s worth around the same money as when he left, at least until he proves he’s worth more in the NHL (and I’m optimistic that he eventually will). But a player with a very similar stat line, profile, and physical characteristics, to 2017 NHL version Nikita Tryamkin, was given a three year deal for just north of $2 million per season. That’d be right around where I’d be looking to sign Tryamkin, if he wants term. And that’s right about the kind of argument I’d hope to see management bring to their dealings with Nik’s agent. I don’t see how he can command $3+ million right now. He wasn’t worth that kind of money in 2017. And he really hasn’t done anything (yet) that should dramatically increase his NHL value in 2020. Hopefully the best is yet to come for Tryamkin. And hopefully it’s in a Vancouver uniform. But he needs to prove himself to be a $3+ million player, on NHL ice, before he should get paid that kind of money.
  21. Seems to add up, when you read the story. WorkSafeBC operates an $18 billion “accident fund” that’s invested through the BC Investment Management Corporation. If that fund took a roughly 15% hit due to the market crash, and an additional $400 million of premium revenue was lost due to business closures and layoffs, it would add up to around a $3 billion loss for WorkSafeBC.
  22. Body checks are penalties in the women’s game, but you just have to watch any game between Canada and the USA and you’ll see that the women definitely “go all out.” And sometimes, they don’t let the stricter rules stop them from mixing it up as good (or bad, depending on your perspective) as the men
  23. Nice story with the Hughes bros: https://www.nhl.com/news/quinn-hughes-jack-hughes-meet-fans-outside-usa-hockey-arena/c-317008104?tcid=tw_news_content_id But in this age of Covid-19, I can’t help looking at this pic and thinking, oh ****, Quinn doesn’t have his mask on properly. And then I see this pic and think, oh ****, some of the people getting food aren’t wearing masks. And then I think, oh ****, this is happening in Michigan, where people do this **** during a pandemic And then I think, please oh please, for the love of Gord, let the hockey gods protect our dear Quinn from the Rona.
×
×
  • Create New...