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

The Lock

Members
  • Posts

    10,143
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by The Lock

  1. If Miller turns out to be the player we need, does any of this matter? There are so many people focused on value and getting "bang for their buck" when it comes to trades that I swear when actual opportunities come up that might be "fair value" but actually help the team, they'd say no. They'd be Nonuts with even less nuts oh boo hoo. lol Sometimes you have to take risks to get somewhere and if you don't.... well good luck at getting anywhere.... We have had 5 years without playoffs and, while I don't mind if we end up with a 6th year, we need to be making trades like this. Sure, Miller could not work out, but he's at least clearly the kind of player we need to make playoffs happen. We haven't had a winger who can actually dish out passes in a while and he does that for the team. CDC might get high at times, but I'd argue people also unfairly criticize before even seeing a thing on the ice. It's like expecting bad things to happen before they happen: perhaps some of the most unrealistic people you can get. Don't get me wrong, I don't know if Miller will be great or not long term, but that doesn't bar me from liking the trade in terms of the actual concept, which is what it SHOULD be about.
  2. I think they missed the ball on not naming it the "Gritty Teeth Room".
  3. I don't doubt the trade was for Biega to have a chance elsewhere, which just puts further emphasis on this having absolutely nothing to do with Tryamkin. As you said, he wouldn't even be signing for at least a few months (if he signs at all). That alone concretely proves this has nothing to do with Tryamkin in my opinion and everything to do with Biega himself. If we gave a connect-the-dots book to CDC, I swear we'd see every number connected with every other number just from the overthinking that goes on. Not directing that at you or anything by the way. Just a general observation I've noticed.
  4. Honestly, thinking this has anything to do with Tryamkin seems a little far fetched to me. Like that's stretching it to the point where Tryamkin becomes 10 foot 2! lol If it would have anything to do with Tryamkin, you would think something like this would happen AFTER Tryamkin gets signed.
  5. I'm not saying I want Ho Sang. In fact, I don't want Ho Sang (I even stressed that in my post, apparently not enough lol). In terms of being "more tradable" when sent down, keep in mind that each AHL team can only have so many veterans on their roster. Not only that, but there are a number of teams who don't have the money to bury 1 way contracts in the minors which limits the potential trade candidates even further. I could be mistaken, but we don't generally see a lot of guys with larger contracts being traded after being sent down like Baertschi has, so I think this notion of him being more tradable might be perhaps more wishful thinking than anything unfortunately. It would be nice, and I'd be pleasantly surprised if it happened, but unlikely in my opinion.
  6. The thing is though, value fluctuates. RIGHT NOW, Baertschi has no value because of the reasons you mentioned. That value can obviously change over time once things like injuries happen. What you've said is regarding the future, which is fine and you're not wrong in that, but it doesn't exactly prove what I've said to be wrong either.
  7. The problem I see here is we are in a situation where we want to give up cap and have too many roster players who are either fringe top 6 (and, yes, Baer falls into this category given his concussion history as of late which has seemed to affect him) or bottom 6. Any team who is willing to trade for Baer at this point is doing us a favour and I'd argue that any player we get for him would be an added bonus. That being said, I don't want Ho-Sang (and let me stress that, I'm NOT for this trade), but I think the fact that Baer went through waivers (which I believe is what was being referred to earlier as "free player") gives a pretty good indication on Baer's value at the moment. Your first paragraph actually proves why the trade would actually work. He doesn't have value due to most teams being unable to afford his cap hit. I am however a little baffled by your first sentence? Why exactly are players easier to trade once they go through the waiver wire? When you're talking a cap hit like he has, why would it even matter?
  8. With all this Sutter talk, here's the way I see it between our bigger contracts that could be out the door: - Eriksson has to go one way or another. However, burying him in the minors still means we have 5mil against the cap as opposed to 6mil (thus, only a 1million in cap savings) but it's what might have to happen if a trade doesn't get done. - Sutter is expensive, but he has a niche on the team and is of more value to us than Eriksson. He's going to be hard to move, but he at least provides our team with a solid defensive game and a guy who really does help on the penalty kill. - Tanev is probably worth the most value of the 3 and probably our best bet at actually getting some cap space. On top of that, he only has 1 year left so he could be a good rental for a team looking to get into the playoffs or even just looking for a more stable defense. I think, with the 3, Eriksson needs to get out of town, but I don't think anyone would disagree in thinking it will be difficult to do. Tanev has the contract that's easiest to trade while Sutter's somewhere in the middle of all of this,
  9. Let me refer back to a scenario where I feel you would be right: Totorella's year. That year, everyone look like husks floating around on the ice. There was no drive. There was no determination. There was pretty much not much of anything. Edmonton has looked like that most years the past few years as well. However, since Tortorella. I can't say I've seen a year out of us quite like that. Even with WD, despite the occasional issues with having Megna on the ice more than he probably deserved among other things, we've never seen players like Horvat or Sutter not have drive. They've always had drive. The defense has had drive. The majority of the team has had drive. This talk of "minimal effort": maybe Eriksson? Beyond that, I never have seen that as being the case. So when you tell me people seem to have "short term memory," I don't know what you're even talking about and I wonder if you've even been watching the same team at that point. If anything, I have the upmost respect for the past few years because our team could have not had drive while "bottom feeding". They could have easily looked as bad as Edmonton has but they didn't. People get fixated on the cinderella stories of the league. They see a team only take 2 years to build and think it should be the norm. They see people get lucky in the draft and drafting the right players. People are literally fixated on maybe.... 5 teams in the league?... and they'll treat it like it's how we should have done it, and I have to say, it's perhaps the most unrealistic way of looking at things. It creates skewed opinions on what we should have been doing, yet, those very teams: what if Toronto didn't get to draft Matthews and didn't get to sign Tavares? What if Pittsburgh didn't get Kessel and Bonino among others to put their team over the top? People are literally fixated on what could be and it puts them in some fantasy world where they think they know more than Benning. These people literally think they are experts at the subject, whether it's from sitting in front of a computer looking at nothing but stats to just outright not liking anything the team's doing and probably never liking what the team's doing. You talk about a "losing culture" when we've actually had drive. You're stomping your feet like a 10 year old not getting his treat in a supermarket, when someone tells you they saw something you didn't and, while you might think it's the other way around, I haven't seen a single specific example from you of the ENTIRE TEAM not having drive. Don't give me a single game. Don't give me the win-loss record. Give me a concrete example of where we walked onto the ice and skated around like husks, including Horvat among others. Stop beating around the bush with stuff that doesn't even prove what you're saying. Go straight to the point and prove it, otherwise, there no point to this discussion. I think you're smart and I respect you, but this might be the most incoherent argument I've ever seen you come up with if I'm being perfectly honest. EDIT: Just a quick edit, I hadn't read your reply to deb before posting my rant lol, but we've had civilized discussions before. Just consider where I'm coming from in this. I ask that of you before you post.
  10. Wow, I never thought I'd hear anyone actually say that any time soon. lol
  11. And yet, despite all of those stats you've provided, we're still a competitive team. This whole "cop out" notion is just one side of the argument refusing to see the other side. And what does "having a player or 2 away from winning" have to do with this? We wanted to keep the drive in our players. At least, unlike Edmonton, our team's actually shown a sense of pride. And yet here, the term "cop out" is being used as if having this pride is some swear word, like staying competitive shouldn't be a thing. Is this really how petty we're going to go in all of this? What's wrong with staying competitive? I honestly don't get it. I'm being genuinely honest about this. I don't get your stance despite my attempts to.
  12. As far as I know, we may not have been getting the points, but the team's stayed competitive despite that. Don't mistaken points for competitiveness. Tampa had a lot of points. That sure helped them last season with their competitiveness!
  13. I wonder if NY will accept Raymond, Ballard, and a 3rd for him?
  14. And the depth will drop off EXACTLY at the end of the 1st round. Pick 31? The next McDavid! Pick 32? Bust!
  15. I know right? "Why didn't we tank for the deep 2020 draft?" I bet that's the exact sentence used too. lol
  16. I think with any plan, you don't just have a plan A and that's it. You have a plan B, C, D, etc. Also, the NHL is not exactly a static entity. I would imagine the plan needs to be reevaluated on a consistent basis to make sure things are on the right track. Adjustments can then get made where they need to get made. It would be silly to become GM in 2014 and still have the exact same plan now without some modifications. I honestly think you and Agent are saying the same thing, just in a different way though. You think it's a different plan entirely. Agent thinks it's the same plan with changes. Both could be right in my opinion. It's just a matter of how you look at it.
  17. Pretty much my mantra for a lot of things. People seem to want to think we own the entire league and can just make whatever trade we want on a whim and sign whoever we want at the cap hit we want (and ironically, these are also people who claim to be "realistic" a lot of the time and claim CDC.com is full of homers, etc).. I've always felt it's about picking the right players over shipping away our assets (another factor people forget, need to give to get) and acquiring picks. We're not going to win every pick, even in the 1st round, but since when has any GM been perfect in anything?
  18. The second trade I was like "hmm, maybe, but why would Edmonton do that?" The third trade I was like "No. Just no. Don't do a Hughmungus....." Also, I don't think we can offer sheet due to the trade we made with Tampa and not having all of our 1st round picks? Not 100% sure on that though.
  19. It would have to be a team with enough cap space to do it. In no way did I suggest a team like Vegas take cap, If you look at a team like Colorado or New Jersey, they have tons of cap space and are looking to make a splash this coming year.
  20. I actually can't wait to see our team likely bullying them when we play.
  21. That's why I suggest Tanev somewhat retained. We complete get rid of the 6mil cap hit of Eriksson while keeping only 1 year of Tanev (or better yet, only part of Tanev's contract). We could get back a player who has a smaller hit (but maybe not a fit on that player's current team) or even a player who will just help us out on the back end or bottom 6. It's a thought anyway. To get something you have to give up something and we might need to get creative like that to actually get Eriksson off the books.
  22. Except I would argue there's a difference between giving an NMC to someone like Eriksson (who, to he benefit, did have a good season prior to the signing) and giving someone like Hansen a NMC. I don't have issues with handing out NMCs, but when you start handing them out to their 3rd line players I tend to cringe a bit. It would be interesting though to do a side by side comparison of who has been given NMCs by each GM for proper understanding.
  23. The thing that gets me in all of these signings is that we actually have some depth in our forward group. Because we had mostly alright players before all of this, those can get pushed down the line a bit, but now we also have players to fill spots when injuries arise. Perhaps we aren't the deepest, but it's still a significant step up from where we were at even a couple of weeks ago.
  24. MacIntyre seems alright these days to me. I used to hate him but he's gotten better.
×
×
  • Create New...