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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aGENT

  1. Yeah, that's the problem with 'tax the rich/corporations' plan. Unless EVERYBODY in the world plays along, your just left with shell corporations etc and emigrating wealth. Unfortunately, the rich will generally find loopholes, or just leave/offshore their money. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with less wealth and the working class still responsible for financing the country. I honestly don't know how you get the wealthy to pay their 'fair share'. A VAT seems the most fair but our fellow BC'ers voted against ours to door the party in power at the time (that still frustrates the hell out of me... Has anyone seen our nose?) To me, what makes the most sense is ensuring the populace is successful, self supporting, educated and with good, forward thinking, infrastructure investment all of which takes things like environment, health, well being etc in to consideration. Companies/wealthy will come to those countries even if taxes are a bit higher than the countries racing to the bottom.
  2. Well, even if not as intentioned, I'm happy a post of mine brought joy and laughter to so many I can be a cheeky bugger at times, so I could see how people got the wrong idea
  3. For all those having a chuckle, I was merely listing the parties in addition to the big three for any potential poll. I was not suggesting the Greens were going to win the election, followed by the PPC and Bloc
  4. I believe a mod would have to edit the original post. Or you could simply start a new election thread, with a poll.
  5. Isn't that EXACTLY what triage is for?
  6. Can you do something about this pandemic too? Pretty sure it's responsible for a large portion of our debt/deficit. I'd vote for whoever gets rid of it
  7. One more month until I can Dune....
  8. Taxation isn't a problem. All the top rated for quality of life countries have high taxation. An educated (well funded, socialized education!), informed and engaged electorate who insist those tax dollars are spent wisely, to the long term benefit of it's citizens (including domestic business owners) as well as a 'for all' attitude above a 'me first' attitude are, IMO, the biggest issues/differences to effective taxation. And counter to your thinly veiled (and long proven false) trickle down economics theory, a LOT more money gets 'lost' when wealthy and frequently foreign owned companies utilize tax loop holes, off shore accounts etc to simply keep or ship out those Canadian dollars than any red tape could ever lose. Those companies/people don't need our public, subsidized assistance. Corporate socialism is the biggest lie of the last century. It's astonishing how many people still drink that flavour of kool aid. Anyway...just voted at my advanced polling. Happy voting all!
  9. No, we have no idea what the 'sticking point' is. Just because we have cap, doesn't mean we need to spend all of it or pay them more than they're worth on shorter term deals. Maybe they've already agreed on 3 year bridge deals and their agent and Benning are arguing over comparables and dollars for that term?
  10. $13+m (depending on roster size) plus Ferland's $3.5m LTIR, if needed.
  11. Not news to anyone paying attention. Pretty clear he went from being the most informative media person in this market to a complete shill for player agents a few years ago.
  12. Well, as I noted in my post, guys like Miller (or Myers, Pearson, Hamonic, Halak etc) aren't probably here much longer, as Hoglander/Podkolzin (and others) eventually eat up his (their) ice time and cap space. IMO Horvat isn't going anywhere for a good while yet. He's here for another +/-8 years IMO. Miller, IMO, isn't a 'core' guy. REALLY good support player. So long as we can continue to hit on late first and later round picks to cycle in to the depth roles they, or their replacements, will be vacating, we'll be fine for the +/- 10 years that this core should still be competitive.
  13. Nonsense, we just need the prospects (Podkolzin, Hoglander, Rathbone, Woo, MDP etc) to come in and replace veteran ones (Miller, Pearson, Hamonic, Halak etc) on ELC and bridge deals, and another layer of support prospects (McDonagh, Gadjovich, Klimovich, Lockwood etc) to replace them, in their current depth roles, as they advance up the roster. Until the core starts to age out anyway.
  14. A lot depends on how this core and surrounding team he's put together, does over the next +/-2-6 years. And how he manages the roster, cap, and if he's able to keep having contributing prospects fill in the support roles vacated by pricier vets moving forward.
  15. Richardson just signed for $800k in Calgary. We've seen this consistently the last few years... Depth veterans signing for at/near league minimum, just to stay in the league. So yes, I think we could sign a another C like Bozak or Anisimov etc, for at/near league minimum. Then waive a Highmore etc to fit them in, with zero impact to our cap space. Can you do that math? First, that post was merely illustrating where Anisimov could fit, as the other poster was asking. If both parties are interested and Colorado doesn't sign him to an actual contract first... Yes, that's exactly what could happen. Happens pretty much every year.
  16. Quinn thus far. Pretty much a 2nd place tie between Gillis, Burke and Benning (all have their +'s and-'s)... With Benning still having a chance of pulling ahead of the other two.
  17. Pearson/Hoglander, Anisimov, Podkolzin Dickinson, Sutter, Motte
  18. With Anisimov gone, hopefully that means we're gone sign Bozak to a PTO/contract
  19. PTO's don't cost any cap space. And if they sign an actual contract for near league minimum, it's just shuffling $ deck chairs. You waive a +/-$800-$900k player and add the mystery UFA. Net zero change on the cap. So maybe stop making stuff up.
  20. Depends on how long the 'bridge' is. If it's the typical 3 year, yeah, it should be in that territory IMO. Once you start adding UFA years (5-8 year deal for Hughes), that starts upping the average. Years 1-3 = +/-$5m, the 4th, probably somewhere in the middle...say $7, years 5-8 = +/- $9m. And that ~$9m will continue to rise with inflation (and hopefully Hughes' performance) over time. In fact, accounting for inflation, you could probably make those last two years of $9's in to $10's If he becomes the elite producing D he projects as, those $10's could be $11's or $12's by that time. So if we take $5, $5, $5, $7, $9, $9, $10, $10 as an 'average', first pair D, and add as many years as you like and take the average to find the AAV (+/-). So 5 year = $6.2, 6 year = $6.66, 7 years = $7.14m, 8 years = $7.5m Then factor in taxes, locale, contender, whether they're not 'average' etc Now does it make sense why Nurse, Werenski etc are making 'more' than AP? Their teams just bought basically all their most expensive, third contract years, and got very little in the way of contender/locale/taxes etc discounts. Makar, given his age/contract status, IMO seems to be an overpay FWIW. Not drastically, but it's an outlier IMO. Especially given the team. It's been rising largely in step with the cap. There's probably a bit of a quicker rise on the top end (stars will continue to get paid, and squeeze the guys at the bottom of the lineup). Forwards seem to have gotten more out of control on 2nd contracts. Petey's comparables are at ~$7m on a 3 year bridges. Hughes' are at ~$5m and the reasons seem completely arbitrary that there's any difference, but that's what the market says they're worth so...
  21. That's because those are cheaper, all RFA years... This really isn't that complicated... Top pair D make +/-$5m in their second contract, short bridge, all RFA years. They're worth roughly $9-10m for their prime/UFA years (or more if they're a top 5 D type... Doughty/Karlsson) until +/-34 where they go back down to +/- $6m. So depending on their age (younger, or older) their contact average will come down based on those things. Then factor in city locale, contender, taxes etc.
  22. Of course there will. That's the going rate for top pair D on third contracts with almost all prime/UFA years! As it largely had been for a while now... Kind of like I've been saying...
  • Create New...