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

ABNuck

Members
  • Posts

    1,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ABNuck

  1. Well played fine sir, well played. [slow claps as he walks down the hallway to the bathroom, Hockey News neatly folded under arm]
  2. Minor point of order here chaps, not sure if already mentioned but the OP suggested that this is a debate. You cannot debate who someone's favourite player is, since it's only an opinion...this is simply a poll. A debate would be "who is the best current player". Anyways, thanks Mr. Buzzkill for that and you're welcome. And my fav right now is JT...voted...
  3. I was just wondering if they still have that DEC 1st drop dead date in the current CBA...and are both players under the same paragraph of rule since they sre slightly different RFA's?
  4. 1 D out, 1 D in...plus an extra forward...who do we waive through to make space for Matt? And I do realize we're only talking 3rd for 5th here but, as you stated that SJ is rebuilding...rebuilding teams rarely trade picks down, most often they trade assets for the potential trade up in pick value. The potential of Rathbone is, of course, the offset, but I don't think I would trade Rathbone for exactly that same reason, the potential upside. Our D pantry isn't as deep as we think...we need to start developing that next gen top 4 now because D-men seem to take a bit longer to become that stable, reliable NHL top 4 D-man, so time is not on our side, we can't kick that can even further down the road.
  5. He's another player that falls into that ugly "in-between" space. As players come up through AAA ranks they learn to play their role (Top 6 or Bottom 6)...and then there's those in-betweeners. He is a top 6 player in the K, but a 3rd liner in the NHL. Problem is, he's pretty much always been a top 6 guy until he hit NA, and a lot of guys can't adapt, they still believe (and their agents push for it) that they are top 6 guys like they were in Russia, Sweden, Finland etc. I truly honestly think this kids best place is in the K...he kind of reminds me of another in-betweener we had, big defenceman, now plays in the K...
  6. Gender equality in ANYTHING is the same as equality in ALL matters: As long as EVERYONE gets the equal chance to participate should they desire, and upon entry to whatever venture they have chosen, are treated equally by comparison to every other participant. "should they desire" becomes the key phrase...not everyone even wants to participate in all things. But if they do, they should expect, and should receive, equal opportunity. The fact that the league had the gender biased title in their name to begin with is a bit misguided...glad it's fixed now.
  7. Just so I have this straight...you started this topic here at Canucks.com AND at capfriendly.com...and you cite each forum in the other one to support your argument...interesting strategy there. You should run for Prime Minister, and make a law that the only people who can vote are ones that will vote for you...you might actually win! (See TRUMP2020 for example)
  8. Eichel >>>> than either Horvat or Monahan...straight up. When you factor in the contract, then I'd take Horvat over either of them. If you said that Buffalo will trade us straight up for Horvat and will retain 50% (so we get him close to the same AAV as Horvat), then I'm pulling the trigger on that deal.
  9. This is the problem with high end picks...they turn into high end contracts that are virtually untradeable. It was hard to trade Luongo, who was signed to such a good deal (good for Vancouver) that it was considered unfair practice to acquire the talent for such a low price (hence the new rules to prevent teams from ever signing those unfair deals again). Now imagine if Lu had a $10m pricetag hanging around his neck...like an anchor... McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, Marner, Benn, Seguin etc...these players will live and die in their current contracts, they're untradeable. No team has the assets to return back and quite frankly, what team would. You basically destroy your future talent pool (players that will play for under 1m bucks in the near future), have to give up something on your roster now for a minimal gain (maybe 10-15 goals or 20-30 pts over the player you give up...plus 3 or 4 more potentially just like him)? Very few teams have that precious combination to make this type of deal: 1 - capspace 2 - a dispensible asset that wouldn't be needed to compliment the incoming talent 3 - a stocked talent cupboard so they can give up 2-3 picks 4 - be on the cusp of competing...in other words, have the complimentary pieces in place at relatively good deals so they can absorb the big hit 5 - the stomach to ride out the huge contract and possibly be looking at a crippling buy-out in 5-6 years (ie Suter / Parise type situations) 6 - potentially stomach the recapture penalty if it came to that Buffalo is living in a dream world if they think they'll ever get more than a prospect, a player and a 1st for him.
  10. This is definitely one main point to fix for sure! Foreign investors come to Canada and soak up the real estate because it's so cheap and easy for them to do it. They drive up the prices and make it hard for Canadian citizens to get that housing. So who exactly are the rule makers working for? Canadians, or foreign investment? I agree that there needs to be 2 sets of rules...most every other country has that. Try to buy a property in Mexico and see whose name is actually on the deed...it's held in trust by a bank. If foreign investors were charged premiums, higher interest rates, and flat out restricted to not being able to purchase more than one property (or own more than one at a time) it might actually start to ease the problem a bit, but it will take decades to reverse the damage done. As I originally stated, I really feel for the GEN Y's...little hope on the immediate horizon.
  11. Hmmmm...build housing for lower income people to gather, make it low cost and very affordable...I feel like we've seen plans like this before, in the 50's, in New York. Worked out real well there. If a person has no stake or no buy in, then the incentive to maintain a property's value drops to zero. What billionaire family is ever going to back a plan where the value of their investment is bound to eventually = zero. Good ideas flowing here, but the real issue becomes breaking the backs of the monopoly and mafia type situations. Anytime a condition is created whereby the rules restrict true "free enterprise" then there will always be profiteering (private or otherwise). Look at government mandated insurance...talk about a conflict of interest. 1/ we make the rules 2/ we will sell you the product that meet those rules, and we keep the profit Take a look at the CEC for example (Canadian Electrical Code). There's a board of directors that makes up the new safety rules each time there's a revision. The board is made up of a lot of directors of enterprise businesses (ie/ the CEO of Leviton Industries, a major manufacturer and supplier of the very products that he helps write the legislation about). In most parts of the world there are in no way the amount of safety rules for electrical products that we have here in NA. For example, you now must have a ground fault circuit protection device that regulates all bedroom receptacles (either a breaker or individual receptacles in each room). The rule that states you must have these is brought to you by the same folks that sell them to you. And they're stupidly (profiteering) expensive. You used to be able to buy a GFI receptacle for $7.95...now they're about $27.95. I know GFI and circuit interrupters are slightly different technologies, but they essentially operate the same. Should we have GFI's close to water? For sure. Do we need them in bedrooms? No. Stupid profiteering. And builders overall are ridiculous in their housing prices. They follow the same "supply and demand" philosophy. There is a strategy in marketing that basically states: Exclusivity drives Profit Margin. The more exclusive and elusive the product (or product name) is, the more margin can be tapped from the source. Is a Lincoln MKC really worth so much more than a Ford Edge? They're basically the same. Is a GMC Denali Edition (with the few extra gadgets) really worth so much more than the next trim level down in a GMC truck? It is if you want to have that Denali nametag on the side. So when it comes to builders, who out there is really building affordable housing, when for the same effort and only a little bit more in cost, you can drive your profit margins sky high. A while back someone coined the phrase "work smarter, not harder". I'd like to meet that person and kick his a$$. We've now created an entire philosophy that basically states "pay me more so I can work less"...and here we are. Why would a builder put up a community of 100 lower priced homes and make $10k off of each home (total profit of $1m) when they can build an exclusive community of just 25 homes at $100k profit each and make $2.5m? He worked WAY less and made WAY more! But only 25 people have a home...the other 75, well, tough crap! You're obviously not exclusive enough to live here. So then we create a whole new generation of individuals that are willing to go to any cost to prove that they belong in the higher end exclusive lifestyle (the "wannabes"). I guess not everyone can drive a Mercedes...somebody has to drive the BMW's too. I digress, but it is all part and parcel of the same problem...the rules create the divisions, and the rules are created by the same individuals who actually WANT the division. What's the golden rule? He who has the gold, makes the rules!
  12. Interesting that this has "finally" become an issue..."look Pierre, the horses have all escaped, we should close the barn doors now!" I feel incredibly sad for anyone who has never been in the house market right now...it's tough to jump into these days. The rules are written in such a way that you are forced to talk to a monopolized industry. When the rules are so tight (mortgage, builder, insurance, code enforcement) it forces people to only be able to deal with certain vendors, creating a profit driven pricing bubble. Where I live for example, the city will only sell a few lots to the citizens, the rest go to the developers. IF you happen to get a lot, it's VERY expensive to buy from the city and the banks won't lend you the money to build your own house, you MUST go through a builder. So they've got you by the short and curlies no matter which way you turn. If you have your own finances in place to build, then no sub trades want to work with you because they get most of their work from the big builders. If they do work with you, then the price is so far inflated that you may as well just hire a builder. If this was any other industry, the government would step in to help stop the profiteering. But in this case, the government writes the rules and the big banks and builders just profit from it. If people start to make more money in a particular area (ie/ natural resources are discovered or whatever the case may be), the house prices just go up. Nobody actually has any more pocket money because the R/E agents just take it from you. And if the mortgage terms were to go back to 30+ year mortgages (in an attempt to lower monthly ownership costs) then the interest rates and house prices just go up...you'll just end up worse off in the end. Not 100% sure what the answer is, but if there were more alternatives to home ownership (allow and help people to build their own homes...to code of course) then that might release the stranglehold (mafia style stranglehold) that the developers and builders have on the industry...it might help some folks. Until then, we languish on...
  13. And two of my all time classics when I'm "motivating the troops": - The key to knowledge is not knowing everything, it's knowing where to find out everything - Go with what works, work on what doesn't
  14. My wife always says "stupid should hurt more"...she's always looking at me when she says it for some reason... My fav is (John Wayne): "Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid"
  15. This will work out even cheaper considering half his salary will be covered by insurance (not so bold prediction there)
  16. They must be feeding the kids raw beef from Lakeside Packers down in Brooks! That's 2 top picks from Tier II Junior to come from the Bandits...not sure if I've ever seen that before.
  17. Agree! Basically, if someone in the organization could GAURANTEE that the 9 O/A pick would be top 4 defenceman or top 6 forward then we don't make this deal. Otherwise, we basically got OEL for a 1st, Garland for a 2nd, and paid ARZ a 7th to dump 3 bad contracts. A couple of days ago if GMJB reported that the Canucks had made a side deal with the Kraken to trade them Roussel, Beagle and LE for the price of a 7th, we'd be calling it the greatest deal in the history of the NHL.
  18. Sign Landeskog...ride him like an old Harley in training camp til he's injured...put him on LTIR for the season...trade him to TBL for a ransom (3 firsts)...they activate him when the playoffs start and cruise to a 3-peat.
  19. The most valuable trade commodities in the NHL are big young defencemen and premier scorers...there's a few of each available to Seattle. Goalies sadly are not as much of a trade bargaining piece as many people think...that's why we have backup goalies and even 3rds who are capable of strapping up and stealing a game here or there (or even a zamboni driver for that matter). Much harder to look up in the crowd and see a 6'4" 225lb 25 year old defencemen or a guy that can pot goals at will from the cross-ice F/O dot and sign them to a PTO...they are much more rare. I'd load up on top end talent and then deal from a position of wealth, rather than try and build a team through this draft. There will always be a market somewhere for a Tarasenko (Minnesota?) type player or a Zadorov (Hurricanes?) type player...ones they can deal away and gain back an asset AND a pick in future drafts.
  20. It's also a strange twist of fate that the Krackheads could field a goaltending tandem of Murray and DeSmith (reunited and it feels so good) by picking them from 2 different teams! Expansion drafts can be so bizarre sometimes.
  21. Yeah, that was a weird one to me...trade an asset (2 assets) to acquire a player, then leave him exposed when you had plenty of other options to expose. It's not like they needed to make a deal in order to meet the minimum exposure requirements so why do the deal? Weird, just weird. I suspect there's a side-deal in place with Hyman...he has spoken to Francis about an extension and he will become TML's pick by virtue of a F/A signing.
  22. With his recent promotion to Head Coach, our old friend Alex Burrows got me thinking...what current NHL'ers would have a good chance at making that next level jump to a coaching career. And of those, which ones would be successful and actually have a chance at sticking around for a while. I've sorted my group into 3 categories...ones who have a high chance of making the jump and who might actually be pretty good at it, those who might be OK, and those who might give it a shot but ultimately don't ever land an NHL Head Coaching gig...ever. Remember, this is only my opinion based on presence and charisma (could he hold a room), hockey IQ (could he actually put together a solid plan) and would players actually take direction from him (is he a highly respected leader). GROUP 1 - the "sure" bets Patrice Bergeron Jonathon Towes Joe Pavelski Blake Wheeler Mark Giordano GROUP 2 - the 50/50's Andy Greene Nathan MacKinnon Roman Josi Ryan O'Reilly David Backes Anze Kopitar Patrick Marleau GROUP 3 - the "try but would probably fail to get an NHL HC gig" group Danny DeKeyser Jeff Petry Derek Stepan Josh Bailey Justin Braun Erik Johnson Brandon Sutter (coaching is in the family blood) There are a ton of other players that fit some or all of the above description as well, but I doubt they would ever even try to become coaches (I'm thinking of players like Shea Weber, PK Subban, TJ Oshie or even our own Captain Bo...players like that). So...who do you all think might try coaching, and who do you think might actually succeed at it?
  23. Thought just popped into my head...had to share: What if the divisions were realigned to have 4 divisions per conference with 4 teams per division (ie/ NFL). The example/idea below has DET moving back to the West (the old CHI-DET rivalry) and NSH moving to the East (Southeast where they have more in common with those teams). The regular season would be 8 games (4/4) against our own division (24 games total), 2 games (1/1) against the rest of the teams in the NHL (56 games) for a total of 80 games in the regular season. The playoffs would see the 4 division champs advance to Round 1, with the next 2 teams in each division playing a weekend (THU to MON) best-of-3 play-in round to determine the other 4 teams in each conference. This guarantees 2 teams per division representing, and since 2 of the divisions (1 in each conference) have 3/4 Canadian teams, it also guarantees that Canada has representation in the playoffs EVERY year. The bottom 8 teams that do not make the play-in round would be the only teams eligible for the 1st O/A pick lottery, with the 8 teams that get eliminated in the play-in round being eligible for the 2 O/A and 3 O/A pick lottery...the rest remains seeded as is now for the rest of the first round. So without further adieu, here's my proposed divisions: WESTERN EASTERN Northwest Northeast CGY BOS EDM NJD SEA NYI VAN NYR Southwest Southeast ANA CAR LAK FLA SJS NSH VGK TBL West Central East Central ARZ CBJ COL PHI DAL PIT STL WSH North Central North CHI BUF DET MON MIN OTT WPG TML
  24. After goalies, defencemen seem to be the most fickle in terms of development and chances to take the next step. Although a forward can sometimes step into the NHL and assume a top 6 role, it's almost impossible for a young defenceman to step in and assume a top 2 role. So here's what the landscape looks like in terms of NHL calibre defencemen: TOP 2 Studs - rare and few...maybe 12-14 in the entire league TOP 2 Regulars - again, there's few, maybe about 25-30. TOP 4 - abundant, and they cover a HUGE array of roles and responsibilities, from high minute munchers occupying top 2 slots, down to "barely" a top 4 D-man (more like a 4-5) TOP 6 - dime a dozen...just like 4th line forwards Is OJ a TOP 2 defenceman? No, he's projected to be a TOP 4...in other words, something there's always an abundance of. So then what becomes more valuable to our organization right now and for the next 3-4 years? A middling defenceman that can easily be replaced, or a 3C? I think it becomes obvious that we need a 3C more than a middle 4 D...especially a LHD. Do the trade JB!
  25. I'd be surprised if Florida doesn't grab him for free...then flip him in the summer for a bag of pucks when Ekblad is back and skating...with LTIR they have the capspace for his hit...and come playoffs (if Ekblad makes it back for a deep run) then he would provide some depth insurance.
×
×
  • Create New...