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. I hear you. And I’m not really all that scared. Even a bad contract is manageable, and guys Tryamkin’s size, even if they play like dog**** (not saying he will) seem to tradable commodities, at least for a while (there’s always a GM who covets size that will believe a change of scenario will somehow redeem a hulking pylon). Again, not saying Tryamkin’s gonna suck, but if he does, we can probably get out of it. I guess mostly I’d just like to see him come back as a “bargain,” especially after him leaving for three years, and everything that’s happened in the interim. We already have enough overpaid boat anchors on this roster, so I’d hate to see another one added (even if it’s not necessarily going to hurt us too bad). My feeling is that Tryamkin can play NHL hockey, at least at a third pairing level. I’d like to see him paid as a third pairing guy, and then hopefully he outperforms his deal.
  2. I’d be really scared of a 4+ year term at 3+ million per. It could be the deal of the century, if Tryamkin becomes the next Chara. It would even be a great deal if he hits a more realistic ceiling of an NHL level 2nd pair/shutdown Dman. But Tryamkin could also easily be the next Erik Gudbranson, or even the next Griffin Reinhart. Getting locked into a lengthy term with that kind of player would arguably be a worse fate for our overall cap health than the Luongo recapture penalty. I’m hoping for a one year “show me” deal that’s fair, even generous IMO, at somewhere around the $2 million mark.
  3. I’m curious what everyone’s “walk away” number is for Tryamkin? Like what’s the max AAV you’d find acceptable? For me, I’m thinking $2.25 million max (and would prefer under $2 million). I’d probably play hardball with his agent if they’re pushing for $3 million. I just feel like his time away from the NHL shouldn’t have increased his value. The rumoured extension offer when he left was $2 million, and I’d say his value today should be flat or reduced, compared to when he was still here (maybe a slight increase in dollar amount due to cap%). Plus, he really doesn’t have a strong negotiating position. Canucks hold the NHL rights. If he wants to come back, he needs to sign with Vancouver. And, while I know all the arguments for why stat-watching doesn’t tell the whole story with Tryamkin, he’s nonetheless had his minutes and points decrease over the length of his KHL deal, and that trajectory needs to be considered in assigning a value for any new contract.
  4. Yeah, kinda went “on and on” there, although I’m sure for every person that thought I wrote too much, there’s probably another who was disappointed that I didn’t write something about every player on the team. These types of questions are kinda my kryptonite. Just too many ways to look at the topic. I have to really force myself not to try to go down a rabbit hole that ends in me writing an essay. Never mind the whole “pound for pound” thing. I mean, it’s clearly not linear between weight and shot mph. You just have to look at the numbers some kids clock at hockey camps (I’ve heard of 50 lb mites hitting 25+ mph). Obviously those kids aren’t shooting better than Chara, even if “pound for pound” they are shooting the equivalent of 125+ mph. Anyway, that’s another rabbit hole. TL;DR: Boeser has the best wrister. And Petey the best “pound for pound.”
  5. Hard to say who has the “best wrister” on the team. Are we talking strictly velocity? Or accurately/shooting percentage? Mechanics? The speed/quickness of actually getting the shot away? The pure “sweetness” of the release? I suspect Boeser has the best pure wrister on the team (and he also tops out on shooting percentage and shot velocity). After him, there are a number of guys who have quality shots, and probably every name on the poll deserves some consideration. Sutter probably also deserves to be on the poll, given the quality of his wrister (which is actually high end). And even a guy like Motte has a really heavy shot, when he gets the chance to use it. Horvat is often cited by his teammates for having one of the heavier shots on the team (but he’s also one of the heavier guys). Virtanen is capable of unleashing one of the team’s most lethal wristers, although his shot selection often takes away from its effectiveness (and he’s also one of the heavier guys). One could go on and on. Considering “pound for pound,” I had to go with Pettersson. Maybe Gaudette is also in the mix, given that he’s right around the same weight as Petey, but also has a wicked shot (as @Googlie notes above).
  6. Like others have said, the games are already bought and paid for through the broadcasters, and most of us have already paid for our cable packages, etc. However, if, just as a hypothetical, they went PPV, it would probably be the one time I’d feel zero guilt using an illegal stream to watch for free.
  7. Well, this lawyer seems to think there’s a case to be made, at least in Canada, that cap recapture and the 35+ rule are discriminatory and violate Canadian human rights legislation. https://nelliganlaw.ca/blog/labour-law/nhl-collective-bargaining-agreement-violate-canadian-human-rights-legislation/ It’s kind of an interesting take, and one I haven’t heard before. This article also discusses some of the other legal arguments against cap recapture (many of these ideas have been discussed in other threads here): https://canucksarmy.com/2019/03/11/from-the-community-retirement-recapture-and-recrimination-how-the-canucks-could-approach-the-roberto-luongo-situation/ Obviously, the Canucks aren’t going to sue the league. Benning already said as much, and the team is already accepting the terms of Luongo’s cap recapture. I just have to wonder what Gillis (or even Burke) might have done, had they been the Vancouver GM when Luongo retired. Mike Gillis especially never seemed to care much what the league, or other GMs, really thought about him, and was willing to look for any and every edge he could find, even if it meant playing a bit dirty. Would’ve been something to see if Gillis took the league to court. Of course, the new, reformed MG probably wouldn’t do it, but the old MG, before he got fired and went on his journey of self-reflection? That guy might have sued the league, and maybe he’d have even won. Oh well, we’ll never know. Fun to think about though.
  8. Switched my vote to Boeser when I saw he was tied with Cooke for the lead. Maybe Boes hasn’t earned it quite yet, but went with the emotional choice. Getting Brock into the top-50 just gives me more of the warm fuzzies than seeing Cooke end up there (not that Matt wasn’t quite a player in his day: 9 seasons with the Canucks and 1000+ career NHL games—I really wouldn’t have any problem with him making the top-50). Had been voting Larionov for a while, but Igor just wasn’t getting the love.
  9. That’s a little unfair to Jankowski. I think he’s already surpassed Schaller by a fair amount. Schaller is 29 years old and his career season was 2017-18, when he scored 12 goals and 22 points. Jankowski is 25 and has already topped Schaller best season totals twice, with 17 goals/25 points in 2017-18, and 14 goals/35 points in 2018-19. Last season, of course, was a nightmare for Jankowski. Started the year with terrible puck luck, running at a PDO in the 800s through December, before stabilizing somewhat to around 950 (which is still really low). He was just getting killed on the percentages. He also had some terrible linemates, especially compared to some of the guys he played with in previous seasons. Of course, to be fair, it should be noted that Jankowski also seemed to lack intensity and drive last season, and played fairly disinterested and soft, although it’s difficult to say whether or not this was a consequence of his having such a rough start to the year, coupled with some deployment that didn’t do him any favours. Whatever the case, his 7 points this past season looks much more like an outlier than his norm, given the 25 and 35 points he scored the previous two years. I will grant you that nobody hopes to draft a 3rd liner/bottom-sixer in the first round. That’s never the goal. However, the reality is that, on average, only around half of picks in the back half of the first round will actually make it as NHL players (200 GP), and the players drafted in that range will average between 0.2-0.3 points per game. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/ Jankowski has played 208 NHL games and he’s averaged 0.31 points per game. That’s right in line for what you expect to see from the average pick at 21st overall. The Flames basically broke even. Possibly they even did better than even, based on the pick percentages.
  10. Definitely would agree that the so-called “failures” of Weisbrod are overstated, and in most cases, they are completely within the norm for mistakes made all the time by management on most teams. The Jankowski pick? Name a team that hasn’t gotten a middling result from a first round pick in that range (especially in a weak draft). ROR? First off, it’s not really fair to hang that debacle on Weisbrod. He was part of the management group, sure, but he wasn’t the GM. And Feaster maintains to this day that the Flames cleared the move with their legal/CBA guys, and they had a different interpretation than the league. Definitely a failure by whatever lawyer looked at the CBA and gave the green light. And a management failure in not consulting with the league before making the move. Plenty of blame to go around, but not sure how much can actually be laid at Weisbrod’s feet. People also like to nitpick the Bouwmeester trade, and they did fail to acquire decent prospects in that deal, which was probably a scouting issue (and Weisbrod bears some of that), but they also got a couple picks, including a first. Hardly the worst trade I’ve seen. It goes on and on, but those are the ones I hear most often, and none of them are all that convincing to me. I get that people don’t like Weisbrod. Honestly, there’s just something about him that rubs me the wrong way, too. But, when I try to look at things objectively, I have a hard time finding anything he’s done that’s really deserving of the reputation he has (as a complete nitwit who somehow keeps failing upwards despite his countless blunders).
  11. That Jankowski draft (2012) was full of grenades. Several teams, picking before and after the Flames, ended up having their first round picks just blow up in their faces. Such a bad draft all around, in terms of the overall results versus expected pick value/position. In hindsight, Calgary arguably did pretty ok, in that they at least have an everyday roster player in Jankowski, versus a complete washout/bust, a player that only caught on after moving to another organization, or one of the guys from that year who've now played their way right out of the league. Of course, there’s no way to spin the Jankowski pick into a good move. It just wasn’t. But it also wasn’t all that bad, at least compared to what many other teams got out of the back half of the first round that year (and even some in the the top-5 or top-10). Probably the worst part of the Jankowski pick was Weisbrod claiming they’d nabbed the best player in the draft and calling Jankowski the next Joel Nieuwendyk. Just a bad, bad move to put those kinds of lofty projections on any draft pick. At best, the prospect reaches their absolute ceiling, and they’ve only just reached expectations. Anything less than that, and the player becomes a disappointment (even if they have a decent enough career). And for the guy who said it, it becomes a never ending source of embarrassment and ridicule. Hopefully Weisbrod learned his lesson.
  12. Well that’s just weird. ^^ Wrote and submitted a long post and there’s nothing showing. Oh well, I talk too much anyway! EDIT: Weirder still, the post reappeared! @StealthNuck is clearly up to some voodoo
  13. Thanks. And I’m not trying to take anything away from Brackett, other than this silly “god” rep he seems to have with some people. Judd Brackett is a really good scout, and potentially an even better manager. He’s been very successful running the Canucks scouting department, and one that, for the most part, employs largely the same staff as it did during the dark days. So clearly he’s doing something right (alongside other senior management on the scouting side of hockey ops, most notably Benning, who promoted Brackett to his role, and redefined the methodology/process used by our scouts). It’s also clear that Brackett is simply a very bright guy, a gifted conversationalist, very comfortable with the press and in front of cameras, has high likability, and just seems to exude many of the qualities you like to see in a manager. I think he’s going to become an AMG one day, and maybe even a GM/VP/President eventually. Brackett has a very bright future in the NHL. Hopefully he can be retained, promoted, and kept within the organization. But if not, he’ll definitely land on his feet somewhere. And if Brackett leaves, it will be a loss of talent, but not an irreplaceable ones, and it definitely won’t be the doomsday scenario some people make it out to be. Even if it’s Brackett leaving and Weisbrod installed in his place, life will go on. The Canucks most likely will continue to draft fairly well, and get decent results, at least based on their draft position and pick volume (both of which hopefully will be declining, as a natural result of the team rising to contender status, and therefore picking later in the draft, and occasionally moving picks for “win now” roster additions).
  14. Honestly, the Canucks have done nothing during the 2014-2019 drafts to deserve calling anybody an “uber scout.” Vancouver has done well. But it’s really nothing out of the ordinary. The biggest factor in the team’s success has been having five top-10 picks, and seventeen picks inside the top-70. Even with enviable draft position, there have been some hiccups. Virtanen and Juolevi are arguably missteps on the same level as Calgary’s Jankowski pick. Boeser was an excellent pick, but not exactly off the board. Pettersson was a franchise changing pick, but maybe only two spots earlier than where he’d have gone if the Canucks has passed on him. Quinn Hughes fell in their laps. He was #2/3 on my board for most of that year (and I even entertained the idea of him at #1). Canucks just got really lucky he fell, and it was a no brainer to nab him at #7. Podkolzin also fell in their lap IMO. The Canucks have done well with their other top-70 picks, getting McCann (another faller) with a late first, Lind (faller) in the second, Höglander (first round talent that fell in their lap), Woo (another faller), you see the pattern. Biggest factor is just not trading away too many picks (rebuilding 101) and having those early picks available to grab these guys. No magic in making those selection. The only real magic, as I’ve said earlier, is getting quality players from mid-to-late rounds, and the bulk of those are the kids with New England connections, the region where Brackett, Benning, and Weisbrod all have deep roots. That’s really been the difference between getting average and above average draft performance over the past six drafts. No genius work here. No uber-scouts. No draft gods. Just a selection of solid picks (on average) made from having good draft position (from losing games and not trading away the picks), and then adding some late steals picked from the region (New England) where our scouting department’s leadership group has the inside track can really play to their strengths. Throw in a sprinkling of good calls from our Euro scouts, the OHL, and the USHL, and you have the reasons for Vancouver’s draft success. Not trying to really take away credit from anyone, just being realistic. It’s not easy. Brackett has performed admirably in his role. Plenty of teams have losing seasons, high picks, sell for more picks, and still **** the dog when draft day comes. The Canucks have performed well when they needed to, and have assembled a very nice group of young players and prospects through the draft. But it not exactly a shocking result. And nobody, Brackett or otherwise, has earned a statue outside the rink or saviour status.
  15. Serious question: what if John Weisbrod is actually the “genius” of our scouting group? I know, crazy talk, right? Right? But here’s the thing: Weisbrod’s scouting background is New England. That was his area when he was an amateur scout. That’s where his connections are. And where have the Canucks really had their big wins at the draft? New England. Of course, this is also Judd Brackett’s area. And Judd gets all the credit. Gaudette, Rathbone, Madden, McDonough, all taken as a matter of fact that these were “Brackett picks.” But how much do we really know? I mean, with Rathbone, it was really Weisbrod on the draft floor pushing for the pick. And we have the video for that one. And McDonough? Well, if Brackett was supposedly “shut down” on day two of the 2019 draft, then who would be the guy pushing for a pick from New England Prep and the Northeastern pipeline? Maybe John Weisbrod? And what if, just what if, that Northeastern pipeline is a Weisbrod connection? What if it’s John Weisbrod who knows people inside NU and can get the inside track on all the kids they recruit? What if it was John Weisbrod who pushed for Gaudette and Madden? I mean, Weisbrod attended Harvard and played four seasons, winning an NCAA championship with the Crimson. Served as an NHL amateur scout for the New England region. Served as an NHL director of collegiate scouting. Worked in the Bruins front office. Clearly the guy has deep connections in New England. Is it really that crazy to think that John Weisbrod has actually had a lot of influence on our draft picks from that region? The very region that, one could easily argue, has been the difference between the Canucks having a successful amateur scouting record (especially when it comes to day two drafting), under Benning, versus just a middling one? I know it sounds crazy. Everyone knows that our success in New England is because of Judd Brackett. But Judd was here long before we started hitting home runs out of New England draft picks. Judd was here from 2008 onwards. And from 2008-2013, we drafted... hang on, lemme check: Patrick McNally and Matthew Beattie out of New England. You know who arrived in 2014, just when we started to really get hits with our picks from that region? John Weisbrod. 2014 onwards, we draft Demko (Boston College), Gaudette (Cedar Rapids, Northeastern recruit), Jack Rathbone (Dexter School, Harvard recruit), Tyler Madden (Tri-City, Northeastern recruit), and Aiden McDonough (Cedar Rapids, Northeastern recruit). Look, I’m not saying that Weisbrod necessarily was the driving force behind those picks. Maybe it was all Brackett. And I know Judd is well respected in the scouting community. I’m confident he does really good work. But it’s entirely possible that the myth of Judd Brackett has grown just a little bit beyond what the reality of his contributions actually are. Only the people inside the Canucks front office really know. But if Judd was the lonely genius on the Canucks scouting staff, solely responsible for every hit we’ve had at the draft table the past six years, I can’t really see any reason why Benning wouldn’t just open up the chequebook and pay Brackett whatever he wants, while guaranteeing Judd full autonomy to run the draft. However, if Brackett has just been an effective scouting director (which is no small thing but also not quite deserving of a “draft god” reputation), it’s a lot easier to understand why Benning might feel reluctant to just give Brackett the keys to the kingdom. Especially if Jim’s best buddy John has actually been much more of the factor in the Canucks draft successes than anyone realizes (outside of the team). Of course, this whole post is just a little late night speculation, but it does make one think, doesn’t it? Or maybe I just need to go to bed? * * * * * OK, full disclosure, I’m kinda having fun with this post, especially in building an argument that Weisbrod is really the “draft god.” But if I’m being completely honest, it’s really not possible that Weisbrod is the lone genius, when it comes to our New England success. One of the things we do know is that Jim Madigan (Northeastern Head Coach) and Judd Brackett are really good friends, and I think they’re even neighbours at their Cape Cod summer homes, so the Northeastern pipeline is very likely a Brackett thing, at least to some extent (Benning and Weisbrod know Madigan as well). And New England is an area where all three of Brackett, Weisbrod, and Benning have deep connections. Mostly I was just playing around with the idea that Weisbrod might have had some role in some of our success drafting in New England, and I think it’s very likely he does. Of course, Brackett has a big role, and deserves lots of credit. Although maybe not the full “draft god” status he enjoys with Canucks fans. I think many of the other guys in our scouting group also deserve a lot of credit. And ideally, all three of Brackett, Weisbrod, and Benning can find a way to continue to work together at the top. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and our amateur scouting is one of the least broke things on this team. At least when it comes to the results. Who know what the relationships are really like between these guys? Maybe things are as “acrimonious” as the rumour-mongers suggest. But hopefully, at the end of the day, these guys can all be pros and find a way to continue to work together. * * * * * OK, now I’m going to bed.
  16. Definitely not your typical 25 year old trying to crack the NHL for the first time. He’s only been a defenceman for seven years, and only really been a “prospect” for 4-5 years. His trajectory, given his rather unique history, is actually very impressive. Most players are starting to plateau by 25, but with Rafferty, we haven’t really approached the peak of his development curve. And, like you say, he’s very intelligent and brings high levels of character and maturity, especially having had to overcome so much already. He’s the type of guy that you believe when he says he’s ready for that next step. I would not be surprised if he grabs an NHL lineup spot next season and never lets go.
  17. It’s kinda crazy when you think about all the stuff Rafferty has had to overcome to get to where he is as a pro. Amblyopia (legally blind in one eye), scoliosis (curved spine), same name as the Craigslist murderer, only 5’8”, 130 lbs at age 16/17, didn’t switch to defence until age 17/18, didn’t start college hockey until his 20’s, and now, at age 25, potentially ready to start his NHL rookie season. That’s an insane journey, with several stops along the way that would’ve ended most kids’ NHL dreams. EDIT: Oh yeah, he also didn’t make the USHL until his last year of eligibility, at age 20/21.
  18. Wow, @Monty, you’re putting the rest of us husbands to shame! I did all the cooking today too, but I’m usually the cook in our house. For breakfast, it was letting my wife sleep in, and then greeted her with a coffee and biscotti when she got up. Lunch was homemade burgers. No easy task, as they were gluten free (wife has celiac), so there’s a whole process for making that gluten free bun taste decent (pro tip: lightly steamed first and then pan toasted with some butter). Dinner was roast chicken, mashed potatoes, gravy, and lots of veggies. And gluten free chocolate cake for dessert. EDIT: Usually our Mother’s Day dinner is more exotic, as we send the kids off to grandparents in the afternoon on Sundays, but quarantine meant that two seven year olds were eating too, so the meals have been a little more family friendly today.
  19. Yeah, most likely. I think for this year’s draft, I’m going to pretend that we kept our first and second. And we picked a point-per-game C/W in the first round, with a playing style perfectly suited for lining up with Pettersson. And in the second round, a top-six quality RW, who slipped to the second because of some risk that he might hold out for free agency, but who can solidify our top-six, if we can manage sign him. And then somehow, through the use of advanced technology, both of these prospects will be age accelerated to reach their primes immediately. I mean, who would say no to that kind of result? That would be an amazing draft, especially for a team like the Canucks. (Oh wait, that’s what we have in Miller and Toffoli ) It just kinda hit me today that that’s what we have to show for those picks. And I would have gladly drafted guys with Miller and Toffoli’s potential. So I’m pretty psyched to have them already here, in their primes, and ready to help this team win (assuming Toffoli is re-signed). Now, if we could just throw Podkolzin, Höglander, McDonough, Lind, Rathbone, Woo, etc into that same age acceleration machine and have them all here and in their primes for next season...
  20. Live image of Leipsic the moment somebody tells him how many grams of cocaine he could’ve bought with all the salary he’s lost.
  21. So Caps waived Leipsic today and will be initiating contract termination. https://theathletic.com/1802961/2020/05/08/capitals-put-brendan-leipsic-on-waivers-after-completely-unacceptable-comments/ I’d imagine this came in close consultation with the league, to make a strong statement regarding the expectations for NHL players. Caps could have easily just let his contract expire (it ends after the 2019-20 season), but by terminating it, they’re clearly taking a stand regarding Leipsic’s actions, and the league is setting a precedent for how these types of things will be handled in future.
  22. I think with the Burrows chirps (Tootoo and O’Sullivan), the league did investigate, it was handled internally, they didn’t find cause for further action (fine, suspension, etc), Burrows apologized publicly, and he did take a fair amount of heat in the press and on social media. I’d say that even the worst of what Burrows said on-ice (which probably the “I’m gonna beat you like your daddy” comment he allegedly said to abuse surviver O’Sullivan), as bad as it was, probably doesn’t rise to quite the same levels as what I’ve read in full 55 pages of DM’s from Leipsic. Also, with Burr, we’re talking about a couple on-ice instances spread over years of playing. Of course, he’s chirped hundreds of other times, and probably crossed the line many more times than have been reported, but it’s not like there’s a tape out there of Burrows saying vile things dozens of times on the ice. There are screen captures out there of Leipsic’s comments, and that makes it much more damaging for the league’s reputation. Also there’s a difference between saying crap to a guy’s face, during a competitive sport, to try to gain and edge and take an opponent off their game, versus getting together with “your boys” and just saying vile **** to get your jollies. In my mind, the latter is much worse. Not excusing Burrows. He crossed the line (especially with what’s alleged by O’Sullivan), but he did pay a price, in terms of his reputation. He apologized. And the league looked at it and decided there wasn’t grounds for action/discipline.
  23. Funny thing is that this happened 4 years ago, and Gary is still using the same email address:
  24. so basically his initials and birthday. Wonder if he uses a similar combo for his passwords?
  25. I just used this: https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/vancouver-canucks-team-stats?season=2019&category=ICE+TIME&time=0 Only because it was my first google result. Official NHL page here has the same TOI numbers.
×
×
  • Create New...