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

theo5789

Members
  • Posts

    10,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by theo5789

  1. I don't disagree that having both Hamhuis and Mitchell (along with Edler and assuming Rome as well) at LD would've been a force to reckon with given what we know now. A healthy Mitchell (in which he wasn't quite there yet in 2010-2011 and who knows if he would've lasted a long run) and Hamhuis not being out of the finals may have taken us to the promised land. A couple of major what ifs. I just don't think Mitchell would've wanted a lesser role and because of our concern with Mitchell's health and age (yes some players excel, but some players don't and I guess there's a risk factor to that), management decided to replace him with a similar defense first type dman in Hamhuis who was younger/healthier and also a local BC boy. I just don't think it was ever in the cards to have both of them. Nor do I think the intention was to have both Ballard and Hamhuis. I think the plan was to go with one of them and have Rome and O'Brien split the bottom pairing duties. RD was set with Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa. I believe we had Andrew Alberts as well. I agree that Tanev should be re-signed this year and it would be costly to try and replace him. While many are dead set in making Toffoli a more important signing (many suggesting to save face from the trade, which I also disagree with), I view him more as a luxury while Tanev would be more integral to the team. Edler will hopefully be at the point where he signs 1-2 year deals to fit into our cap to stay here and also help along with our pursuit of the Cup. Edler wants to be here and is likely willing to make that happen. A more mobile Hal Gill is a good comparison to Tryamkin. Potentially a larger Willie Mitchell could be another (utilizing the stick reach and playing the physical game and Mitchell was a decent skater). Either way, hopefully he's watching their game tapes rather than the expectation for him to be a Pronger. I am perfectly fine with him being a solid defensive and physical shut down dman.
  2. This is tough. In terms of actually helping build a team, I would make that trade. However, giving up our first ever 1st overall pick opportunity seems like something that could haunt us. I may want to target some of their prospects as well (Suzuki, Primeau, Romanov or Brook) to have some knowns in what our return would be plus they would be closer to help us now if the goal is to unload cap to build a more solid roster. I know the cap dumps aren't the primary parts here, but they certainly wouldn't be a reason for us to give up on the 1st overall that could immediately boost us with an ELC and the marketing/revenue would be crazy. If we trade it, we would want more help now/sooner. Keep in mind, acquiring Lafreniere would open up trading other pieces that we could add futures/help now/use in a cap dump (eg Lind, Hoglander, etc) or moving someone like Pearson for cap space instead.
  3. Forgot about that, what a damn shame.
  4. Hopefully Tryamkin will be that guy for us.
  5. I don't think the decision came down to Ballard vs Mitchell. It was Mitchell vs Hamhuis. Both are defensive stalwarts. Gillis rolled the dice on getting a younger/healthier version in Hamhuis. Philly acquired his rights to get early negotiating in. And I almost forgot that his rights were traded once again on draft day to Pittsburgh when Philly couldn't get a deal done. It was a massive unknown whether we would even be able to get him signed, so I think Gillis wanted to ensure he had a top 4 LD in which Ballard was at the time of the time and pulled the trigger on draft day as well. When Hamhuis made it to UFA, we simply acquired our primary target. In hindsight, letting go of Mitchell may have been a bad decision as he did still have a couple more years left in him that could've made a difference, but I don't think we add Hamhuis (and unlikely Ballard) as well if we did re-sign Mitchell early on. The minutes simply wouldn't be there despite on paper it looking like an incredible roster (although it should've still looked good even with Ballard considering he was supposedly a top 4 guy playing as the 3LD). LA rolled the dice on Mitchell in August, so I think they wanted to ensure he was healthy enough to play and didn't throw him a contract offer immediately on July 1st. The concussion issue was certainly an issue for GMs. Ferland would've garnered a 6 million dollar contract if he didn't have his concussion concern. We likely rolled the dice in hopes that he would bounce back (we also didn't sign Ferland immediately and wanted to check on his status) and got him potentially on a bargain contract for a potential top 6 player. Despite Ferland having concussions in the season prior, he was still able to play in 71 games and some of the playoffs unlike Mitchell who missed nearly half the season and the playoffs altogether. If Ferland had the season he had this year on his contract year, I doubt JB gives Ferland a contract offer. I think the sequence of events is very important in the context of this and this is what is causing the undeserved extra "hate" towards Ballard even though he didn't pan out as well as we would've liked. This is similar to when Hamhuis walked later on and we got nothing in return. There is more to it than us simply letting him go, but yet there is a lot of criticism towards this when the context of events prior is ignored.
  6. It would appear that many do not understand the concept of a playoff rental. Nevermind the fact that other teams paid even more for their rentals (and we probably got the best of the bunch) than we did because we didn't wait until the deadline and didn't reveal the Boeser injury yet to put our backs into a corner. If we can afford to re-sign Toffoli and we do, then that's gravy. IMO, he would simply be a luxury add for our team and not a necessity for the team (nor to save face supposedly).
  7. Willie Mitchell signed with LA on August 25. Could Gillis have been waiting him out and hoping to sign him on a dirt cheap deal? Maybe so, but I find it unlikely. We had Edler already and after adding Hamhuis and Ballard as well on LD, was Mitchell going to be signed as supposedly their press box depth option? Don't forget we had Shane O'Brien at the time as well and we ended up trading him for cap space and because we didn't have the roster space for him either. O'Brien was making 1.6 million, so Mitchell would've been offered a dirt cheap deal without term too if that was the case. I could see why if we didn't already commit to not signing him that he wouldn't want to sign here with an embarrassing offer (contract and role) like that. Also we had signed Aaron Rome on July 1st, so all of this leads me to believe we were never intending on re-signing Mitchell. I think with Shane O'Brien, he would've been a serviceable and cheaper bottom pairing option than Ballard and splitting duties with Rome if O'Brien could keep his off ice issues in check. So I can't see them needing Ballard in that case. So Ballard must've been acquired with the intention of playing top 4 (he was a 22+ min all situations dman in Florida when we acquired him) considering what they gave up and his contract. This is why I think we made a desperation move worrying that Hamhuis wouldn't make it to UFA, but we still locked up our target given that he was available. Gillis probably thought we would have one of the best d cores with the acquisition of Ballard as well, but unfortunately AV didn't feel that way (although Ballard had his injury issues as well).
  8. I guess it would be more "bold" for all the non sense we have heard over the last couple years. It's going to be nice for those who actually followed and supported Tryamkin to see these "predictions" come into fruition.
  9. I think I remembered a slightly different sequence of events. I agree that I believe we didn't want to extend Mitchell due to his concussion/age and he was likely told that he wouldn't be extended an offer. I think Gillis wanted to put in a bid on Hamhuis who was going to hit UFA. A wrench was thrown in when Philly acquired his rights which left the Canucks unknowing if Hamhuis would even make it to UFA. Gillis panicked and went to look for another top 4 LD option with what was available. But yes, Ballard got undeserved "hate" and was an easy scapegoat. His teammates loved him which says enough for me.
  10. Sautner is a solid depth call up option. OJ will/should hopefully surpass him in time. Considering OJ hasn't seen an NHL game yet, I suspect he isn't going to walk right into a playoff situation barring him actually outperforming in practices and earning that chance over the guys that have some NHL experience. There's a reason why Sautner was initially the first call up this season when we needed a body. He got a concussion and Brisebois became the regular call up for insurance for much of the season. OJ once again is just coming back from injury/maintenance and still could use some game action (which he is unfortunately missing out on in the shortened season in the AHL). I'm not against him getting a game if he does earn it (or if several players go down), I just don't think it's the right situation to bring him in considering the pressure/scrutiny he will face not only given that it's playoffs, but it being his first game and all the hype that will be around it. I think he will gain valuable experience in the practices at this level that he can grow for next season.
  11. I would say Sautner and Brisebois are ahead right now. Sautner has experience and Brisebois has some as well with some regular callups over the season. OJ will really have to stand out in practices to surpass them for this play-in/playoffs to get a look IMO. The coaching staff likely is more comfortable with those guys right now, but OJ would be getting some real good experience in the practices that he can carry over into the next season. However between Benn potentially being away from the birth of his baby, a potential injury and Covid, he may get a look in a game. It's a lot of pressure from this fanbase on him getting his first NHL game in this type of atmosphere especially after all he's had to overcome with his injuries, so hopefully people will cut him some slack and don't expect some saviour from the hype of him playing.
  12. Many ridiculed the Tatar trade when it happened. Not so much worry that the 1st could potentially be an amazing pick, but rather for a rental that they certainly wouldn't be able to retain. The fact that they didn't play him made it look much worse and the fact that they added two more picks to the deal. It isn't as scrutinized here because it's not under the Canucks microscope. I'm not going to dig back, but there was certainly a lot of scrutiny over the trade from the usual suspects in the media. Some have changed their stance or have decided to keep quiet because they have been made to look like fools, but JD Burke is the only one that I know that has doubled down on his original stance. The criticism of the trade that I've mentioned is mainly the initial reaction, but the discussion/concern over that 1st certainly carried over for some over the course of the season. I'm glad JB is changing some opinions of him, but there are many of the usual that still think he's out to ruin the team. I, for one, don't think JB has a perfect track record, but I haven't felt like he's done anything of major concern that was worth freaking out over especially when context is put into the thinking.
  13. The criticisms came out when they found out we traded a 1st away. Whenever that happens, its major panic. Of course their go-to was that we would be giving up a top 10 pick and worried that it would the one year we finally won the lottery and gave up a top 3 pick. That panic led to believing it would be a bad trade. There were certainly people in the "media" that thought this was a bad trade (most notably JD Burke, who I believe to this day still thinks it's always going to be a bad trade giving up that 1st). I remember people were throwing out analytics and looking at his minutes drop and his point totals drop (even for that one year) and were wondering what the heck JB was doing. They felt like this was a sheer cap dump type trade and that TB was in a tight spot, so we should've fleeced them, except they certainly had other options (the benefits of having the riches of good players). This thread demonstrated this, I believe someone said it starts around page 9. I think people were mainly upset about the 1st and many have been wanting to harp on Benning any chance they got, so they tried to nitpick every possible negative thing they could find in the deal and hoped they were right to continue their tirades. The people that actually looked at the real value of this trade liked this trade as advertised even before Miller broke out (in which then the bandwagon shifted).
  14. Canucks let Mitchell walk because he had a concussion the season prior to him hitting UFA and we weren't confident that he would return to form after missing nearly half of the season. He didn't really bounce back the following season either and not until the year after. So yes he did help LA on their cup run, but it hard to argue that he was "stud" when we let him go. Ballard was acquired on draft day, so not sure how the cap was a worry at that time. I think we did make a panic move because our intention was to make Hamhuis an offer, but Philly had acquired his rights and we didn't know if he would even hit UFA. So with that unknown and likely already telling Mitchell we are letting him walk already, we wanted to ensure that we had LD covered. Beauchemin was acquired for Lupul, Gardiner and a 4th in February of 2011. Gardiner was a 20 year old prospect who was coming of college with a PPG season (younger dman with top 4 potential is worth more than Grabner IMO) and Lupul was a middle 6 player that had 50+ point seasons under his belt (whereas Bernier was only a 30 point guy at best and was really decent bottom 6 player). I would say this trade is very close in value to what we gave up. Let's keep in mind as well that Beauchemin was a 30 year old at the time of the trade and Ballard was 27. Ian White was a RD. We had Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa on the right side I believe. Don't know if either of these players were available when we wanted to make a deal. But yes unfortunately AV didn't want to play him for whatever reason. Pretty much all of his teammates called him a good team guy though. I don't see why anyone would put any blame on him for costing us a championship though. So as I've said earlier, it was an insurance move if we didn't lock up Hamhuis, albeit a panicked one IMO. But that is likely the cost of potentially a top 4 dman. And we weren't going to pass up on Hamhuis when he was still available. Also as mentioned, moving a couple of forwards allowed us to add key pieces to the forward group that were integral for our run. It was a 25th overall pick, so it was a low percentage 1st rounder anyway and the pick never panned out plus given Gillis' drafting, it may have not made much of a difference either. Ballard at least gave us games during an incredible season and playoff run (including some nice highlight hip checks).
  15. One Nikita signs, it'll squash though doubters that he will ever return in a Canuck uniform. I have no doubt his play will squash those who doubt his ability to play in the NHL.
  16. I don't see it being much different than them playing in the playoffs any other year. They risk their health (could break a bone, get a concussion, etc) anyway. This play-in/playoffs allows them an opportunity to stand out to try and earn another contract. The flat cap would hurt their negotiations, but that was always going to be an issue whether they played or not.
  17. Hindsight is a b*tch. Funny though that we traded a 1st and a decent prospect (and some other pieces) for two top 6 scoring wingers (Miller/Toffoli) and people still complained about those deals at first as well. Sometimes trades work, sometimes they don't, it's just the way it goes. In this case, didn't work out as well as we hoped, but in hindsight, it didn't help them either so no harm no foul. Ballard played some key minutes on our 2011 run and we were depleted on defense, so who knows how much of value he was for that run, but it's certainly added value to us in that deal. Willie Mitchell at the time had concussion issues (and as we know many are adverse to injury prone players). We didn't know if we could get Hamhuis signed before the trade was made as his rights were acquired by Philly in an attempt to get him signed before he hit UFA (Philly traded prospect/project Ryan Parent for his rights who which we also acquired later as well after there was no more space for Shane O'Brien). We had the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Samuelsson and Raymond at the time of the trade, so we probably felt defense was a bigger need at the time especially with the decision to move on from Mitchell already. I think many simply overrate the value of 1st round picks (we aren't talking about top 10 picks here) and prospects (not to say they don't have value, but they aren't the gold pieces that some believe).
  18. Just goes to show that those pissing and moaning about trading 1sts and prospects that those players don't always turn into HoF players as what seems to be the major worry.
  19. Given the track record of CDC, I hope you find out the consensus and then avoid picking that player
  20. They could pay that 21 million out or they could pay 17.5 million and still get to that same floor with LE's contract and thus save money for a team that doesn't draw crowds even prior to the pandemic. Not saying this will happen, but that's the incentive. Even if this becomes moot, whether he gets paid his bonus now or have it deferred is moot as well. But with it paid out, we can at least explore this option and LE could explore the idea on if he's ready to retire (especially if we choose to waive him). Getting this bonus paid out starts the next chapter in this tale of Eriksson.
  21. The funny thing is that the safest hockey would likely be played in BC. However seeing that there's currently like a 6-10% infection rate of the players, perhaps it's best to not bring them here and potentially cause an outbreak. If there is an outbreak, I wouldn't our city to be marred with that. Doesn't look good that the NHL wanted to force us to change our rules for health and safety and I'm glad we didn't sell out for them.
  22. Well like I said, it's to artificially raise their cap while paying less salary. We will see how the market affects teams. I'm not saying it's a certainty that it will happen, but it's a much better possibility than before his bonus being paid out. I was replying to a poster suggesting that he was hoping the bonus payout would be delayed to give us more time to move him, but I'm saying it's easier to potentially move him (or have him consider his future) now that the bonus is paid out.
  23. The sooner that bonus is paid out, the sooner he could potentially be moved (more enticing for teams to pay less of his contract) or at least consider his future (5 million salary left over two years). Postponing it does nothing for us and he is getting that bonus regardless. With the market now, there may be more teams that want to artificially eat up the cap while paying less salary and now LE fits in that category of player.
  24. I agree with not having a lottery. However I would have a "reverse playoff" for that 1st overall pick. Have all of the teams that missed the playoffs play a mini tournament. The teams that just missed the playoffs may have the advantage, but that should encourages teams to not tank and play the best hockey possible even right to the end as it's setting yourselves up for this tournament. It's extra games for the teams that missed out on the playoffs, but their incentive is to bolster their team into a better position for the future (perhaps some UFAs that aren't staying with their teams don't give a damn, but it could also be a showcase for their next contracts). The NHL would get more games played for more revenue and the fanbases for these teams have something further to root for. The increased level of competition should allow for even more parity in the league creating more exciting games throughout the season. Teams that want to get that 1st overall will have a harder time tanking and then turning it back on for the tournament, so they will have to remain competitive. It would be kind of like how in Europe where they have relegation that it keeps the games for the bottom teams more interested and hungry to keep going.
×
×
  • Create New...