-
Posts
10,799 -
Joined
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
-
This Marner thing is a fun rumour because of the roster adjustments that would need to be made. To keep Boeser, and add Marner (via offer sheet), the Canucks would basically need to move full cap hit contracts on Eriksson, Sutter, Baertschi, and Schaller. Then sign Marner, Boeser, and Goldobin, and bring up Gaudette (and maybe MacEwen or Perron) for the season. The cap is workable, but that would be quite a task moving all those contracts, and still keeping the necessary picks for compensation on Marner. But it could be done, and it would be very exciting to watch (possibly terrifying), as JB has never done anything close to that type of wheeling and dealing in his career as a manager. Lines might look like: Miller-Pettersson-Boeser Ferland-Horvat-Marner Pearson-Gaudette-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Leivo Goldobin, MacEwen/Perron, (Rousel IR) or for more balance top to bottom Goldobin-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Marner Ferland-Miller-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Leivo Gaudette, MacEwen/Perron, (Roussel IR) Not really attached to these lines, and camp/preseason will determine spots and chemistry, but the depth is certainly workable. Miller at 3C solves any issues around Gaudette’s readiness. Although personally, I’d start Gaudette in the lineup, and with some protection and enough rope to settle in, and hope he rises to the occasion (with Miller as Plan B, if Gaudette stumbles). Could even try something like this Leivo-Pettersson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Marner Ferland-Gaudette-Miller Motte-Beagle-Virtanen Goldobin, MacEwen/Perron, (Roussel IR) I’d like to see what Gaudette could do with that level of linemates, and with a fairly balanced scoring top-9. I mean, it’s not gonna happen regardless, but it’s definitely fun to try to imagine the lineup with Marner added, and the players removed to make the cap work.
-
Aidan McDonough | #25 | LW
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to GoldenAlien's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
Twitter thread with a ton of GIF highlights from McDonough: Interview/article via Canucks Army: https://canucksarmy.com/2019/08/10/getting-to-know-aidan-mcdonough/ -
Meh, he probably needs to be humbled, with all his entitlement issues, amirite?
-
I kinda hate doing this, but I’m gonna talk about the “body” of a young man who’s our prospect. When you look at Mikey, you can see how he’s not your typical 6’0” goalie. He’s quite wide at the shoulders and has long arms, a long torso, and shorter legs. His wingspan is actually just a hair under 78 inches, or roughly the same as 6’4” Jake Oettinger. As DiPietro continues to hone his technique, he’s likely going to be able to provide similar net coverage to that of a much taller goalie. He body is just “built” much taller than his height suggests. (And yeah, I’m aware of how creepy some of this sounds. I hate talking about these kids this way, but just wanted to point it out, as the picture clearly shows how wide and rangy he is.)
-
[Rumour] Markov eyes an NHL return
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Kobayashi Maru's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
He was definitely slowing down, before leaving the NHL, and the past year in the KHL, his scoring appears to have really declined. Went from 33 points in 2017-18 to only 14 points in 2018-19. Scored just 2G 12A in 49 games with Ak Bars Kazan last year. For context, that’s actually a lower points/game (0.296) than was put-up by his teammate (and Canucks alum) Andrei Pedan (0.324 pts/gp). Of course, Markov offers more than just pure offence (his all situations play is quite underrated), but still, that kind of production dip, and for a player at 40 years of age, often points to a rapidly declining overall game. -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Wow, I thought Arrow’s suggestion that this thread should be locked seemed a little over the top, but the last page or so is actually strengthening his case. -
For those that think JB doesn't have a plan.
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Arrow 1983's topic in Canucks Talk
Canucks gonna win like Trump? Looks like Podkolzin is already working on the “Russian interference” part:- 42 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
-
Calder Trophy - Hughes or Hughes?
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Battlemonger's topic in Canucks Talk
Voting tie and Calder shared by Hughes brothers? -
Both are 1999 born so ineligible by age for the 2020 tournament.
-
I keep glancing at this thread and seeing “Buy our Beer?” Must be the small phone screen and my old eyes. Either that or I just want a beer. I’m going option two.
-
Looks like Arty will join Pod on the Russian Olympic National Team (“B-team”) roster for the Sochi Hockey Open, August 3rd-8th: http://en.fhr.ru/news/item/59372/
-
Glad to see Focht had a strong game. I didn’t watch the game, but read a couple places that he was one of the standouts today. Got a chance to play at 1C and seems to have made the most of it.
-
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Much as we need to move Eriksson at some point this year, if a deal can’t be found without having to give up significant sweeteners, I’m inclined to start with him on the roster, and try to use him in a way to shore up his value. I don’t want to come off as an apologist for Loui, but there are some factors beyond just poor individual performance, that fed into his struggles with the Canucks. Mostly, this comes down to the team being a poor fit. It’s no coincidence that’s Eriksson, a goal scorer who has generally made his living within about five feet of the net, struggled to catch on with a Canucks team that has pretty much been the worst rebound generating team in the NHL for the past five years, and ranked at the very bottom of the league for every year running while Loui has worn blue and green. Vancouver has also struggled just generating shot volume. Same goes for through shots. And our point men have been really poor at getting shots through traffic for close-in deflections, or to create rebounds and goal mouth scrambles. Even our power play strategies have been an issue, with a lot of the focus generally toward creating “one-shot” goals, versus attacking with overwhelming shot volume, traffic, tips, scrambles, and crashing on rebounds. And even where we have had players capable to playing the sort of game that’s more geared toward Eriksson’s strengths, he’s rarely been given significant minutes with those specific players, or deployed in a role where he might really be able to take advantage. It’s really no coincidence that Eriksson was a 30 goal man when he received boatloads of icetime, especially on the PP, with some of the league’s better rebound generating players on the Bruins, and was used as a “garbage goal” guy in front of the opposition net. It’s also true that his usage in Boston likely inflated his numbers, creating the impression that he really was “an elite scorer and playmaker” (to quote Benning), when perhaps he was more accurately described as a pretty good two-way second line forward, and one with a bit of a specific skillset, at least on the offensive side of the puck. In any case, if we’re stuck with Loui, for the time being anyway, I wonder if the best choice for right now is to just make the best of a bad situation? It would be interesting to see Eriksson used (offensively anyway—defensively he still has shown value as a Canuck) as a net front presence on one of the power play units. Especially if we can have a unit with the personnel and formation/strategy to play to his strengths, and possibly pad Eriksson’s totals during the early part of the season. We’ve added some players (and continue to develop young stars) that should improve our shot volume, rebound creation, through shots, point shots, and also passing from behind the net and goalmouth puck placement. Hopefully this results in better team performance overall, and possibly the added benefit of providing a significant boost for Eriksson, if he’s given (and maybe “gifted” is the more appropriate word here, much as I hate the way that word gets used) the opportunity to play a role that’s more tailor made for him. If nothing else, it’s worth consideration. It’s looking more and more like Eriksson isn’t getting shipped out of town anytime soon. I still believe he needs to be moved as soon as possible, but maybe by waiting (which we kinda appear to be doing anyway), he could be moved more painlessly. If Eriksson (seemingly) miraculously breaks out of his multi-year funk, and starts showing signs of being a player that another team might actually envision as an asset, rather than just a negative asset/cap dump that requires sweeteners in a trade, we might be able to pull off a “pump and dump” play for the ages: clearing the full Eriksson contract without sacrificing any future assets. Hey, a guy can dream, right? -
I don’t see the advantage here. This hypothetical 21 man roster has an averaged club salary at the upper limit, with the unfit player (slated for LTIR) included, and Hughes and Pettersson papered to Utica. So, in another way of looking at things, it would be a 23 man roster with an averaged club salary, prior to papering down Hughes and Pettersson, exceeding the upper limit by Hughes and Pettersson’s combined averaged club salaries (excluding achievable bonuses), or $1,841,667. But to recall Hughes and Pettersson, as replacement players, the aggregate player salary and bonuses will be now have to be charged against the LTIR exception (relief pools), so now you need to fit $5,369,167. So the hypothetical LTIR player in this scenario needs to have a cap hit of at least $5,369,167. Let’s ignore the Boeser contract situation (and to keep things really simple, ignore the Roussel injury situation as well), and just assume that somehow the Canucks are able to add this hypothetical LTIR player, and still have an averaged club salary that, by papering Hughes and Pettersson down, doesn’t exceed the upper limit. You’re basically adding an unfit player with a $5,369,167 contract (or more), so that you can place them on LTIR and exceed the upper limit by that amount, and then add Hughes and Pettersson, at their full salary and bonuses, when recalled as replacement players. But it you simply didn’t acquire that $5,369,167 LTIR player in the first place, in this hypothetical situation, you would actually have enough cap space to carry Hughes and Pettersson, at a combined $1,841,667, with additional cap space available to cover their full achievable bonuses ($3,527,500) for the season. Without the LTIR player, in this scenario, you could even accrue cap space in the process, gaining flexibility to make roster additions later in the season, or to simply banking the cap space needed to cover any bonuses and avoid overages. I really don’t see an advantage in adding an unfit player, papering ELC players down (at their cap hit excluding bonuses), and then recalling those same ELC players as replacement players (at their aggregate salary plus bonuses). Choosing to paper these high bonus structured ELC contracts (at their average club salary, excluding bonuses), and then recall them as LTIR replacement players (at aggregate salary plus bonuses) is a scenario where you’re more likely to create hardships than advantages. It’s basically sending down two players with a combined $1,841,667 cap hit, for the privilege of recalling a $5,369,168 cap hit, for the same players. Sure, it forces the club to include the maximum achievable bonuses in their cap calculations for the year, but it doesn’t really create any extra space to do so. It just takes away some of the team’s cap flexibility, and forces them to carry the full cap hit of Hughes and Pettersson’s achievable performance bonuses (and regardless of whether or not the bonus targets are actually achieved on the season). Maybe I’m missing something, as I’m writing this post while under a lot of distractions today, but I really don’t see any advantage in this hypothetical.
-
PP and PK - Thoughts on who fits where
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Silver Ghost's topic in Canucks Talk
Miller: net front If you look at Miller’s past production, nearly all his power play scoring comes at the net front position or as a playmaker behind the net. He’s quite crafty getting his stick on tips and finding rebounds, and his greatest strength, passing, is well utilized as a setup man from behind the net. Bumper: Ferland Again, based on past production, Ferland is best used at the bumper position. He has a good release from the slot, can capably relay pucks centrally, and can crash the net, or move down for double screens, or extra net front presence to grab rebounds. Sideboard shooters: Boeser and Petey Not much needs to be said. Point Dman: Hughes I’d run with: Miller Boeser - Ferland - Pettersson Hughes on 1PP, using a 4F/1D in a 1-3-1 formation. Alternate between a cross-ice/diamond (working the puck around a diamond to create cross-ice passes to setup the half board shooters as primaries, with the bumper/slot as secondary option) and a low release play (where the puck is worked to Miller down low, and he can setup the other three Fs as shooting options). Hughes isn’t really relied on as a shooting option, but plays distributor and also handles the puck to create delays that allow rotation and reset of the formation, while maintaining zone possession. PP2, I think go 3F/2D, playing a little conservative with a full D pairing available to transition to 5v5 if the PP expires. Edler and Myers, each crossing over to their off sides, to maximize shooting potential. Horvat obviously plays on this unit in a central role. I’d use Baertschi as net front/down low, where he’s surprisingly effective. Leivo as a RH shooter coming off the left halfboards. Or Pearson as the LH shooter off the right halfboards, which isn’t ideal with 3 LH shot Fs, but could still work. Baertschi Leivo - Horvat (or Horvat - Pearson) Myers - Edler I’d use a split formation, alternating between 1-3-1 and overload. Baertschi shifts between netfront and moving below the goal line. Horvat moves between the bumper/slot and net front. The third forward comes off the halfboards. The Dmen play their off sides, to maximize shooting options, with one D moving down as a halfboard shooter in the 1-3-1 (the other shifting more centrally up top). -
[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Provost's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Loui should definitely be wary if an orange man offers to take him furniture shopping. -
Looks like Avto has 16 Dmen signed, with at least a dozen who could be KHL regulars. But when Tryamkin rotates out for a game, it’ll be a “healthy scratch.”
-
Maybe an obvious tribute, but “the scene” from Blade Runner seems appropriate: Stellar acting and such an iconic moment in film. Hauer actually rewrote the monologue for that scene, and the famous line “all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain” was his original work. Amazing talent. Rest In Peace.
-
This trade is just about adding the cap flexibility to sign Marner after the season starts, if necessary. Smart move really. Before this trade, the Leafs would not have had the cap space to sign Marner after the season opened. Now, they basically have ~$10 million to offer Marner, are pretty much locked into that amount, and can negotiate from a “take it or leave it” position, without having to worry about opening day affecting their timeline to get a deal done.