theo5789
Members-
Posts
10,599 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by theo5789
-
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Interesting for a person to question character, when that person calls out our drafting due to lack of prospects going through our farm as a flaw to Benning and then flip flops to us having amazing drafting also as a flaw to Benning and singlehandedly praising Brackett for it. So which is it? No one was suggesting there wasn't a possibility that Brackett may be leaving. Many just didn't think we would be crippled if he did as some believed. People were questioning those tweets that suggesting all the successful picks were Brackett and all the "bad" decisions were Benning's. Taj's credibility was questioned with his blatant hate bias towards Benning. JD Burke isn't far off with his assessments (do you agree with him that the Miller trade is bad even to this day?). -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
He's working diligently on trying to secure a job at TSN. -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Benning offered him a contract to stay. Brackett had stipulations on signing that required more or total autonomy. How did Benning time this? Why can it not be perceived that Benning saw some holes in the scouting department (as a former scout and director himself) and thus why he wants to get involved more with his experience? -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Fair enough, Brackett has to go into a situation where the GM is not a strong scout and would leave it all to the draft department to make the call. Working with Gillis likely would achieve that. As we have seen the discussion here about autonomy, there certainly wouldn't be any "handing over" to whoever is hired as the next director. I don't know if Biech is the leadership type of person for the role, but I think Benning certainly values the analytics side during the draft discussions. I only brought him up because there was a tweet that seemed to have Benning mention him specifically. -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Wonder if we will interview Mike Futa who LA is letting go (perhaps Brackett heads to LA in sort of a trade). Although if it's internally, supposedly Ryan Biech was specifically mentioned by Benning. -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Internal voices... -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
So both prospects were highly regarded, is that a surprise? Benning has praised DeLorme for being the persistent presence towards Pettersson. So yes perhaps Benning may have wanted Glass (likely being able to see him more than he could've seen EP personally) and he was the "BPA" at our pick anyway. By the time the draft came, Benning was fully on board with EP and it showed on the draft floor (pointing at him and even attempting to trade down past Glass, but didn't want to fall too far to miss their target altogether). If Benning really wanted Glass that badly, he would've had him. He's the GM with the final call, he would've had his way and he did because he and the draft team wanted Pettersson at the draft. -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
How dare that advisor not see in the future that their pick would be riddled with injuries after the pick was made. -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Did they fire DeLorme, Gradin and Hammarstrom?- 583 replies
-
- 14
-
-
-
-
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
You mean the guy that over-excitedly pointed at EP blowing his cover to trade down wanted a guy that if he really wanted that he could've simply taken since he had the final call and he was still available? Besides let's ridicule the guy for supposedly wanting the projected BPA at the time and at the same time criticize him for not taking the projected BPA in the Tkachuk-Juolevi year. Nothing contradictory here. If anything this shows that Benning and crew and willing to make bold moves in picking below the projected BPA by these media "experts".- 583 replies
-
- 14
-
-
-
-
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
We are eagerly awaiting what Taj has to say about this. -
Because the usual media idiot have been trying to paint Benning in a bad light over-exaggerating any rumours coming our way to rile up the sheep (in this case suggesting why are we even considering Myers as he will be some overpaid fool on a 7x7 contract and then we go on to sign him to a representative fair market deal, but people are still engrained that he's "overpaid"). JB isn't perfect, but perhaps he's not as bad as he's being portrayed (in this case Benning makes all the wrong draft choices while Brackett made all the right ones, even though Brackett himself has praised Benning's system implementation).
-
[Signing ]. Mikko Lehtonen signs 1yr ELC w/ Leafs
theo5789 replied to SilentSam's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I know the PP has been a talking point last season, but we were one of the top PP teams. This may have been in part due to having one more skilled set up type PP (that could shoot more) and then a second unit that was more of a get pucks on net and crash and bang. Some nights, that 2nd unit was more effective. I'm not sold that a 2nd PP QB is all the necessary for the downgrade in defensive play and the cap hit needed to sign him. 6 million is a hefty price tag for us to take on. As I said, I think Rathbone and/or Juolevi could take on those 2nd PP unit duties and eventually (certainly within the time frame of a Barrie contract) while not being much worse defensively at a minimal cap hit that would provide more value to that role. -
[Signing ]. Mikko Lehtonen signs 1yr ELC w/ Leafs
theo5789 replied to SilentSam's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
The issue I see with adding Barrie in a secondary puck moving role is that we have seen it briefly in Toronto now and while it was beneficial for them when Reilly went down and he became the primary guy, it looked like a bit of a nightmare prior to that. At the cost that he would command, I just don't think it's viable for him to be a backup puck mover and he's not good enough defensively otherwise. I prefer to have the cap space and hopefully Rathbone/Juolevi could be that "backup" pick mover for Hughes in the meantime and defensively they couldn't be much worse than Barrie at a fraction of the cost. -
This season, they reduced their home ice much closer to NHL sized rinks (along with a few other teams) and I'd argue it was probably his best defensive season in the KHL. Whether that's from the ice surface change or more maturity towards the game, it bodes well for his transition back here.
-
If would be much harder on our cap if he does outperform his cap on a one year deal. I guess I feel like 3 million for say 4 years would already be a bargain (assuming we can fit this number under the cap). A comparable for me is Zadorov who recently signed a one year deal for 3.2 million. Of course he's more proven at the NHL level, but if Tryamkin can play at his level after one season, then we are looking at paying comparatively (I expect he will get around 4 million on his next contract) and that's not factoring in potential UFA status. So we can save now or save over a duration of a contract? With the risk minimized by the trade factor, I'd rather gamble and save over the duration of the contract.
-
The current % of players of that suggested age group will get pushed out soon enough as their contracts expire and the younger, more developed players step in. We had signed some vets in the meantime to allow for the development of our young players which is just as important as drafting/acquiring them. With that said, we currently have one of the younger teams in the league and our current vets will expire when this young core gets to that mid-20s level to become the vets and start the next wave/cycle.
-
I get the concern, but 3 million a season isn't far off of bottom pairing money (on a more balanced defense group) and I think that's his floor. His skating (for a guy his size) already puts him ahead of Gudbranson/Reinhart, which is key to the current NHL. I don't think I'd go more than 3 million on this next contract, so it's about how many years would he take at 3 million (minimum 4 years at this price tag IMO). We offered 2 years at 2 million before he left, but I'm comfortable with 2.5 million for 2 years as an offer now if he wants less term to prove himself). I'm not a fan of a one year deal given his potential and I believe takes him right to UFA (correct me if I'm wrong). Why I'm not concerned about the term, especially at 3 million, is that he would still be very tradable. We were still able to trade Gudbranson despite not the best outlook during his time here (and got a decent player in return) and he was traded again. This is with an even higher cap hit than the proposed Tryamkin number. GMs covet dmen with size still and that doesn't take into account of Tryamkin's skating. Someone like Zaitsev was able to be traded despite his cap hit (although I think Zaitsev is a bit better than he gets credit for). This tradability minimizes the risk of him not panning out for whatever reason (only one I can think of is if he's unhappy here and wants out because in terms of his play, it's doubtful that he can't be at worst a bottom pairing dman).
-
Yes and looking ahead beyond next year, our cap issues don't seem to be that big of a problem especially with the prospect pipeline filling in as the higher cap hits start dropping out. The planning hits a snag if the cap doesn't continue to rise as they had originally hoped, but that will be a problem across the NHL as it's doubtful anyone has planned for this. If we are okay today, things are looking much brighter down the road in terms of cap relief.
-
It's tricky for me. I think if he wants more money then we need more term. I'm comfortable with 3 million, but it'll have to be 4+ years for me. I'd go up to 2.75 for 3 years. If he wants a 2 or less show me type contract, then he has to accept 2-2.5. No clauses in his contract though, so if we sign him with term, I'm not too worried about not being able to trade him should he not pan out here as there will be teams that will take a chance on a guy of his size (although I can't really see how he wouldn't pan out here as long as he's putting in an honest effort).
-
Let's keep this in mind that it's not necessarily about the Cup for us this season (although that doesn't mean we don't try). The goal is to give the young group some playoff experience and also to allow management to asset which players they feel they would like to continue on progressing with. Any playoff experience is great at this point as was likely the goal of the season. The further along we get is simply gravy for this season (let's not forget that for many here they were still talking about tanking prior to this season). I think the teams that have to play their way in to face the top teams will have an advantage to those teams with a bye. This would almost be a mini preseason and coming off a "series" win could give them the advantage on the current top teams. Most rest in between playoff series is generally an advantage, but this is a long break and I don't think having more rest at this point in time is advantageous.
-
Gear's job is plan out the cap and let the GM know what numbers we can work with to get a team under the cap. We are currently within the cap and haven't yet lost anyone due to cap reasons, so technically he is doing his job (our RFA contracts have been excellent). He's not directly in charge of choosing the players which is more on Benning and the pro scouts. We can debate over the value of some of those players, but that's not the point here.
-
While I agree with mostly what you've said here, I'd like to point out that many of us aren't so much in the "Benning is a draft guru" category, but rather we are simply pointing out that Brackett isn't a draft guru alone. Not many have suggested that Benning alone is a draft master, but instead have suggested that he has implemented the systems in place that have been successful during some of this franchise's best drafting (Brackett himself has said so). Many of us give credit to the scouting team (which includes Brackett and Benning, and also what Benning himself has praised as a whole) unlike the media (and the sheep) who parrot the idea that it's solely on Brackett.
-
I'd be curious too. It’s worth noting that Juolevi has been playing big minutes on both the Comets’ power play and penalty killing units Big minutes on the PK to me doesn't suggest sheltering. They may have been trying to manage his minutes as a result of coming back from his injuries, but they weren't protecting him against the top players.