theo5789
Members-
Posts
10,599 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by theo5789
-
Perhaps this is a reason why Gear was promoted. I think if we had Hughes earlier or someone like OJ not have a set back that Gudbranson could've had a partner to be the brains of the operation while he was the muscle and it may have worked. Gudbranson looked a lot better with someone like Edler with the smarts and skills than say someone like Hutton or Pouliot when it became more of a tire fire. I think he could've been a Methot to Karlsson, but that situation took too long to arise and we decided to move on and were able to get a solid middle 6 winger in Pearson. Seeing the initial reaction to the trade would suggest it wasn't as obvious that Tampa was hiding a bit of a gem. The ones that did had no problem with moving the 1st because it was a protected one, so we were looking at a middle to low 1st rounder. While he produced decent numbers in NY, he wasn't considered a solid player. AV was interviewed and he said he gets it now which Miller agreed, so he had the potential, but needed the time to figure things out. There was a reason why Gudbranson was a 3rd overall pick as he also had potential, but he just didn't live up to it. Sutter was a 30-35 point 3rd line center which included a 21 goal campaign prior to us acquiring him. I guess the belief was that if we could get him more minutes that he could be a 50 point guy while being a solid defensive forward. Hard to say what he could've accomplished if he didn't get hurt. In the end, he because a support piece taking the hard minutes, so Bo didn't have to at such a young age. Sutter's skill was more a shoot first type player much like Kesler and perhaps we wanted to find a Kesler type replacement. In hindsight, Bonino probably should've been dealt for futures, but as you've been alluding to, Benning wasn't told to do a full tear down, so he tried to do what was best to accomplish the goals set for him. Yes those players didn't work out, but we also moved out players for picks. I believe I looked back and we didn't have less than our full allotment of picks. We had probably more lower end picks, but we have also made some of the lower picks count which mitigates that issue. Whatever failed strategy we had prior has turned into one of the deepest prospect pools we have in ages. With that said, you mentioned that it was obvious from their first games that they wouldn't be a fit. I was simply pointing out that each had impressive first games and perhaps set the bar/standard that was expected for the duration of their career here. I was responding to a poster before that was suggesting the downfalls of Benning (perhaps his incompetence) and I am simply trying to explain that that isn't the issue here. Apparently a 6 year tenure is too long because he said we could turn this around quickly. Despite some ownership meddling that required to get them on board during this 6 year tenure to getting us a incredibly deep prospect pool to being on the verge of the playoffs again from where Benning had begun, IMO, is relatively short order in comparison to some other teams, even beyond Edmonton. Some teams were blessed with franchise 1st overalls to turn their fortunes around and we never got that luxury as well. We microscope Benning's moves, but every GM in the league could be criticized when looked at further. Only one team wins the Cup and they become the example while every other GM has done something wrong. Disagreeing with ownership is one thing, but I've been discussing Benning. As I mentioned earlier, over Benning's time we had our full allotment of picks. So while we did trade away some, we also acquired some back. What's to show for it is our deep prospect pool and we have been trending the team up for the last 3 seasons and potentially could've been back to the playoffs this year with a young core. And it's not just picks, we have acquired prospects (and traded some away) and made some decent signing of college/CHL free agents as well. Errors have been made for sure, but the grand scheme of things is that we are progressing forward. We didn't pull a full 180 overnight and it's been a process and I'm trusting it. Yeah it certainly has been a breath of fresh air to not deal with the reactionaries after every loss. Aquilini seems to have embraced the rebuild and realizes that it's better business to have a young and exciting team.
-
I never said we targetted Gudbranson, but I think we did jump at the opportunity when we heard he was available (I'm sure other teams would've gotten into a bidding war for his services). I think we expected more from Gudbranson. We weren't trading for a finished product, we were hoping for more from a 24 year old former 3rd overall pick given a larger opportunity. Yes Benning possibly could've looked at some red flags, but these are the risks you take. If Gudbranson was an established top 4 RD at that age and with his size, he would've cost far more than what we gave up. Miller was another example of someone that could've had some red flags (eg why was he getting limited minutes, why did his production drop, etc) and we took that risk, gave him a bigger opportunity and he flourished. This is very similar to the Gudbranson situation, just that it worked out for one and not the other. We took a risk on Pearson and that has played out nicely as well. We also jumped on Toffoli (like we did for Gudbranson) as his trade value would've been much higher at the TDL. Sutter was likely expected to be a 2nd line center for us, which would also be a bigger role for him than he's had before. No one would've predicted that he would get a major long term injury in his first season with us after being an iron man prior. Bo Horvat would emerge and took over the 2nd line center spot which pushed Sutter into a different role than originally planned. I think Sutter would've had a much different outlook here had he not starting getting all of his injuries here, but that is something no one could've predicted when we brought him on. I believe Sutter scored in his first game with us and Gudbranson was a physical force in his first game with us. I find it hard to believe that anyone could've predicted their career paths as Canucks based on their first games. We are only starting to see our young talent being brought in. Only Bo Horvat really had been under the Sedins. Edler and Tanev haven't sheltered any young dman other than Hughes now (and if it were up to some fans, they would've been dealt long ago before they had any opportunity to do any real sheltering). We brought in vets as stop gaps as we didn't have the youth to bring up early on in Benning's tenure and they were to become players for the young players to compete to earn a spot on the team and to ice a team. They were subsequently cut when young players did surpass them. Benning has drafted well and we are just starting to see this influx of youth coming in as depth as we are establishing the young core as well. The Duchene trade garnered far more than expected. Ottawa had just made it to the 3rd round of the playoffs and were looking to bolster themselves even more. There was no way Sakic would've known the behind the scenes happenings that would blow up and flip Ottawa upside down. They got lucky rather than finding superior value. With that said, Edmonton did undersell Hall, but that just goes to show what an incompetent management can do to a team. The major gripe against Benning is about his record during his tenure and that it's been 6 years, well Edmonton is a prime example of a team that 6 years is nothing for a rebuild (especially when he's dealing with outside factors that didn't allow him to rebuild from day 1). Colorado was also in a funk for quite some time and both they and Edmonton were gifted with actual lotto picks unlike the Canucks who had to unearth their own gems under their own destiny as we weren't handed anything.
-
I guess we differ in how we view Roussel. He's not a player that I view to "dump". I think he has value to us, which turn gives him value to others in a trade. I don't think he's being sheltered so much as being the veteran presence on the line. He was injured to start the year and certain players had taken over PK duties. We moved on from Schaller and in this scenario LE is out. Who's left to PK? I suspect Antoine would find his way back onto the PK. When Roussel has his legs going, he's one of the fastest players on the team. IMO, the biggest knock on him is that he has a reputation and thus hurts his ability to play the agitating role that he's effective in. If we can manage our cap, I'm not in favour of dumping cap while selling off assets. There weren't many teams last year with the cap room to take on dumps and if the cap stays the same or drops, that simply makes it ever harder with more supply than demand. Cap floor teams get that much closer to the floor and aren't as desperate to look for a cap dump. But if anything they might look at someone like Ferland if he can't stay healthy as a LTIR option and especially if his contract is insured. With all that said, I expect we get one compliance buyout at best. Easily goes to LE. I assume we can still have a regular buyout and I would pick Sven with his one year left makes it more manageable. Roussel can still be used in a 3rd/4th line role to provide value for us there or to boost back his stock hopefully. His offensive numbers this past season was right around his average numbers and he was just beginning to click with Gaudette before the season ended. We will have to see how things play out, but I didn't see us having too many cap issues and if we remove all of LE's contract, then that just makes things all that much better and easier. If we can trade Sven, then I'm all for it, but I think I would want to dump Benn before Roussel as well.
-
Fair enough point, but that doesn't mean we weren't hoping to get more out of him. If he was a legit top 4 dman with the attributes he had, his price tag would've been even higher and possibly unattainable (think about what a trade for someone like Parayko would be like, you wouldn't get him for the package we gave up for Gudbranson). He was 24 and was starting to get bigger minutes and filled an RD spot we were hoping to fill and was a physical presence. JT Miller was getting "3rd line" minutes in Tampa, but we clearly expected more. We were expecting more from Sutter who was primarily a 3rd line center for the team's he was on. You take some chances and hope for home runs, you aren't always going to connect, but when you do, you get guys like JT Miller. Sutter had unfortunate injuries and Gudbranson didn't like up to the billing, but we got Pearson in the end for him.
-
Keep in mind that Boston had been drafting well to sustain themselves this long (with Benning as part of their management group). Before Benning took over, we barely even had a prospect group, hell we didn't even have our own farm team for a period. We didn't have the transitional group to carry us over. Like I said before, a 6 year turnaround time (we were looking to be playoff bound this year) isn't that bad comparatively to some teams in the league and especially when we didn't go full tear down from day 1 of Benning's tenure. As I've also said, we haven't been restricted from anything and lost anyone due to the cap yet. We haven't run into cap troubles yet. If we aren't getting full value on the players, it hasn't hurt the team cap-wise, just Aquilini's pockets and he seems okay with it so far giving his trust in Benning. Prospects need to be developed and as soon as they are, they become cheap depth options to mitigate the cap issues. Most AHL teams are led by vets, so what? We had a good team and some of our prospects have improved during their time there to allow them to support the top vets. Keep in mind that Rafferty was leading the defense group and DiPietro took over the starting duties. Lind made big strides as well. With Goldobin and potentially Baertschi out next year, Lind may have a more prominent role amongst other prospect additions to the team. We are starting to have one of the youngest teams in the league, so whatever older vets JB seems to like in your eyes have had the scales tipped by the influx of youth to the roster. Benning likes to support his young players with character vets which is a model that other teams are starting to follow. Soon these vets will be pushed out by youth and our current youthful core will become the veteran group. It's a process and I trust it with the way things have trending thus far.
-
Boston core was younger in 2011 and thus has sustained longer success from that point. They've retooled well, but we will see how much longer it lasts. JB was in the management group in Boston and has probably picked up a thing or two during his time here to help us bounce back quickly. You have your opinion on Gudbranson, that's fine. But don't downplay Pearson because that was a fantastic pickup for the pro scout group. Finally a consistent winger for Bo, our captain, that has put up nearly career numbers when his career looked to be fizzling is an excellent find. Never heard those rumours. Please share the source so I can read up on it myself. I do know that Toronto was in the mix in trade negotiations as Burke said, so it surely wasn't Florida or nothing. But this is your personal vendetta against Luongo, it has nothing to do with your belief that Schneider was dealt as a "rebuild" move. We haven't had a problem where we had to move someone that we didn't want to due to cap reasons. You may think some players are overpaid or what not, but until we lose a player that we wanted to keep due to cap reasons, then our cap management is fine. Aquilini is okay spending to the cap, so that is his problem if he was hoping for a more bargain bin group (I hear Dorian is the man to support if you're looking for that type of GMing). JB's pro trades have always been of the mindset of making hockey trades rather than trying to rip someone off. The league has shifted to this mentality. You might find some trades that are better here and there, but unlikely you'll find any GMs that has hit on every trade they have made.
-
Realization of the rebuild is one thing. Having the green light is another. If Aquilini didn't approve for the rebuild, then there's only so much that Benning can do. So Benning's "6 years" is not a full timeline of his efforts towards the rebuild. Given that and the direction this team has headed, I'd say he has turned this time around in quite short order. Even looking at a full 6 years, we are still further ahead than some franchises who are still rebuilding after longer struggles. For example, we haven't had the luxury of 1st overall franchise picks and yet many of those clubs haven't gotten much further despite being in the basement for much longer. As for the Schneider trade, I saw it more as resolving the goalie controversy issue with the best they could get rather than it necessarily being a "rebuild" move. If I were rebuilding, why not stick with the younger Schneider and move out Luongo? If this is an Aquilini issue, then that's one thing, but we are discussing Benning. We will see what happens with Brackett and his impact should he decide to leave. Expecting Benning to know the full details of every prospect is unreasonable and thus why he has a scouting department. That doesn't mean that Benning hasn't set the goals for the scouting department to look for. That's not to say Brackett hasn't done a good job in his role, but it also doesn't discredit Benning from the drafting direction. They have draft meetings and discuss their targets, so it's not surprising that Benning refers to "we" in terms of getting their guys. Benning isn't arrogant and respects his group (an attribute he has implemented through the organization) and thus gives credit to all involved. The problem with this is the expectation that every trade/signing needs to be a hit to be considered a good pro scout. Gudbranson was a 20+ min dman for Florida who was 24 years old when we acquired him and was a hard hitting RD that stood up for his teammates. Just look at the posts that suggest we go after a Dillon or Edmondson, etc and that's the type of dman many want. Two more teams took flyers on him after his time here. Perhaps the goal for him was to be a protector for Juolevi who would've been the brains of the pairing, but we all know that he had his setbacks and the plan didn't work out. I still respected Gudbranson's time here, but let's not forget that we added Pearson for him who's turned out well for us which is a plus to the pro scouting side. I agree Ferland was a risky move. During the season, it was reported he was looking for 5-6 million a year for a lengthy term contract as a UFA. We got him for a fraction, so I guess we took the risk that he could overcome his issues and hopefully get him for a "bargain". It wasn't so much what he did 5 years ago, he was a 40+ point player for his most recent two years prior to signing with us. MacEwen wasn't a sure thing at the time and certainly not a potential 40+ point player at the time. Benn was excellent in Montreal and was a local guy. He looked like he would be a great fit here. Fantenberg was a #7 pressbox guy. I think Sautner could've been the #7, but I think Fantenberg was formidable this year and almost stole the #6 spot, so I don't think it was the wrong move. Brisebois, I'm comfortable with him having another year on the farm and think he will get a long look next season on making the roster. Beagle is one of the best 4th line centers. Not many 4th line centers get the tribute and honour he got from Washington in his return to the city. He is well respected and took a fair price to pry him out of Washington. He's been one of the best faceoff men in the league and has been one of our top PK guys. Goldobin and Dahlen were noted that they needed development still. We got prospects and picks for aging vets, something many have called for. Goldobin didn't develop quickly enough and Dahlen wanted a shortcut. As you've mentioned, Motte has been good. Toffoli trade will look better if we can re-sign him, but that's more on the trade being worth it rather than the pro scouting missing on the move as Toffoli has looked great with us. The Miller trade was a massive home run. I don't think Benning has a perfect record, but his record doesn't concern me as someone that can't pro scout. When you try to "buy low" on players in hopes that they give you greater value than the return, then it isn't always going to work out. However this is the only way to make things happen when you start off with nothing much in value to move and face massive criticism if they do make a move with a piece of value to bolster the team.
-
There was a change in direction in that 6 year span. I think ownership knows this and thus why Benning is still employed as he's done what he's been told and has adapted the shift. Brackett does indeed get credit, but we don't know who's direction has led to the draft record as many scouts have been praised for their work. Was it Benning that implemented this high character aspect towards looking at young players and simply Brackett has found the players that fit the asks of Benning or was it Brackett that made an overhaul when he was promoted to chief scout? As for pro scouting, again this comes down to the shift in mentality. You cannot gauge all signings equally. Early on, we were making moves to win with an exhausted team. We made stopgap signings during the start of the rebuild to ice a team. We are now trending up and have acquired JT Miller, Toffoli, etc who are players that have made an immediate and significant impact to the team. We added Myers, who despite many opinions against him, has played big minutes and has been useful to our much needed RD. We added Ferland who was a risk, but would've been a significant add should he have been healthy. I think the pro scouting is fine and they have managed the cap decently IMO not going after the big tickets knowing when they've been priced out and knowing how much cap they would like to spend to have depth on the team. Has Benning made some mistakes? Sure, but they are players that were impactful prior to joining us and for whatever reason, some players simply did not perform like they did prior to joining us due to injuries or whatever (IMO you can't blame poor moves on injuries as no pro scout could predict those).
-
Just a couple of thoughts. You praise that we got high character players, yet your primary gripe seems to be the Juolevi over Tkachuk pick. Does Tkachuk scream high character to you? If not, then perhaps that's why we passed on him. We may have went more for need, but Juolevi was highly ranked as well and unfortunate injuries have set him back rather than us missing on the pick due to quality of the player. We still may get a career out of Juolevi. The other thing is Gudbranson could still play and still is currently in the NHL. Perhaps our style of play didn't fit with his game, but he's still a coveted player in the NHL seeing as a couple of teams were still willing to take a chance on him after us as well. Sutter was extended almost as soon as we acquired him. He was a healthy player at the time and given his age and production, I'm not sure how he could be considered not a fit for the team. Baertschi was extended before his concussion issues and at the time, he was progressing quite nicely. The team has felt that he's been hesitant since his concussions, but this non-fit was after the fact. Gudbranson was extended because there was demand for the player, so we tried to make it work. We were able to move him for a middle 6 player for us, so no harm no foul. As for the worst NHL record, well Benning took over a team that needed a overhaul. That overhaul was done immediately. Not many GMs would come into that situation and turn a 180 on the team. I'm glad the team didn't scapegoat Benning and has let him have some stability in building us in the direction we are in today.
-
We get the annual complaints of how players aren't worth their contracts because they are injured too often. And this is for players that had good health records before joining us. Adding a player with a track record of Sami's injuries already isn't going to go over well. It'll just lead to more "why did Benning sign an injury prone player?" nonsense. With that said, I agree that Vatanen is a great player and I'm not opposed to adding him like you said for the right price. But there is that cloud hanging over him.
-
In this scenario, the cap has dropped or stagnated and thus cap becomes more of a premium. If we want to sell off cap, the price will have risen. Deals could be done, but it'll be pricey. In this scenario, we are talking about a 2nd compliance buyout. Roussel is more tradable than Sven (we tried to give him away for free last year with no takers). Roussel is at least still an NHLer and can provide a role for us in the meantime with his skating and agitation (sparks of offense). In his 1st season with us, he had career offensive numbers and was on the PK. He came in this season injured and for whatever reason didn't get the PK time, nor the offensive chances, but he can play a bottom 6 role. So we move the unmoveable and look into moving the potentially moveable if we need more cap (and if we can't, at least he is playing for us and trying to contribute to our success, rather than hanging onto dead cap). Roussel would be one of the first guys picked up if he's bought out IMO.
-
[Report] Kris Versteeg announces retirement
theo5789 replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in General Hockey Discussion
Burrows? -
I think we would be lucky to get one buyout. It'll depend how much the cap drops. However if we even get one compliance buyout, that does mean the cap has dropped or best case stagnated, therefore not many teams will be taking on cap dumps, at least not without a heavy add to it as cap becomes even more of a premium. I doubt we would be able to move the full cap of any of those players. IMO, if we do get two buyouts, I'd be buying out the obvious in LE, but use the other on Baer, who is dead cap. Roussel IMO is still a moveable asset (perhaps with slight retention). Sutter may also be moveable if the right situation came about, but I think we would have to retain this not getting his full cap back. Benn probably is at best a waiver candidate to save us a million if we are truly done with him as I doubt there's a trade market here for a position that could be filled by a lot of budget options.
-
Who do we replace Tanev with? Is there a market for Boeser for a #2 dman? Toffoli is not getting less than 5.5-6 million and I imagine he will want reasonable term. He would surely get that in the UFA market (if the cap is lowered to affect the UFA market, players may go for shorter term and hope the market bounces back). Markstrom may sign for about what you have said, but I think he will want assurances that he will stay a Canuck, meaning trade protection and more importantly expansion draft protection. I would keep Motte over Leivo especially if Motte could come in at that price compared to Leivo. As it stands right now, our lineup would be (with LE compliance buyout hopefully): Miller - EP - Toffoli (re-signed hopefully) Pearson - Bo - Boeser Roussel - Gaudette - Virtanen Sutter - Beagle - Motte MacEwen We could trade Boeser for help on D, but is Virtanen/MacEwen/Leivo ready for a top 6 role full time? If not, then Boeser stays and there's no room for Leivo. Now we could possibly try to move Sutter/Roussel and that's where Leivo would fit back in, but until then, he's an odd man out for me. I also expect Lind to be battling for a spot and who knows what other young player will step up this off season. Benning has said he expects like 7 young players to crack the roster in the next couple of seasons, so that also will need to be taken into account.
-
The problem is if every team got a couple of compliance buyouts, there will certainly be more room for teams to pick up those players anyway. We are lucky if we do get one compliance buyout, but that would be because the cap is going down, so there is no way we could afford to re-sign Tanev (assuming also Toffoli and Marky and RFAs) and add a pricier bottom pair LD (especially with Benn in the fold already). Ideally it would be nice to add one of those guys, but I can't see it happening.
-
To replace Tanev? Half the list are LD (as long as we have Benn, we aren't adding here) and the rest are nowhere near Tanev's level of defense except those who are not much savings on Tanev. To replace Stecher, I am hoping that would be Tryamkin (and hopefully he will become good enough to take over some of Tanev's minutes to ease his workload).
-
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
theo5789 replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Top scorer is a tall task and if he can accomplish that, good on him. Larsen, I would suggest, what a shot in the dark for a player that is more sought after as a puck moving dman as opposed to a moderate scoring winger with not a lot of other attributes. If he can find another level to his offense, then that will garner more interest indeed. -
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
theo5789 replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Linden Vey has been one of the KHL better scorers for a few years and hasn't gotten a look back in the NHL. Grigorenko the same, but younger too. I'm sure others fit the bill. Goldobin would have to light the league on fire to get a look especially when looking at a return at 27 (two years in the KHL and the start of the following season). If he isn't ripping up the KHL, I can't see many teams willing to pay a cost to acquire him, so it may be more beneficial to him that a team could sign him for free thus mitigating the risk on themselves. Doing what's best for the player seems to fit in more with how the Canucks organization has embraced the respect culture. Plus it was noted that Goldobin had said that the Canucks weren't going to sign him and thus why he is looking to the KHL for a contract possibly with an out clause should an NHL team take a chance on him. -
That is some Podkolzin type poor development. Pull him out of college and get him in the AHL now! Or wait, I forgot that this problem is only in Russia.
-
I believe it was a shift of mentality to start re-tooling. We obviously had told Hamhuis we were ready to move on from him in trying to trade him rather than simply extending him. This was demonstrated as we started moving on from other vets like Hansen and Burrows the following year as well. Also, at the time Hutton looked like he was an up and coming young dman ready for a bigger role after leading the defense in scoring (with Edler out for a lengthy period of the season also). We were also tight against the cap, so with Hamhuis getting a 3.75 million offer from Dallas, it wasn't like we could afford him to potentially be a bottom pairing dman with Edler and Hutton in the top 2 LD on paper. Hamhuis was a shell of his former self much of his time after he left the Canucks and didn't really do much for Dallas or Nashville in taking them to another level.
-
GM of the year right here everyone.
-
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
theo5789 replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I believe Hansen had another year left on his contract. Burrows was expiring, but we were able to net a former 2nd rounder prospect with potential chemistry with EP and got Burrows an extension for his future financial security. At the end of the day, we got "value" for them. In hindsight, yes the prospects and picks didn't pan out the way we wanted, but we simply got some lottery tickets and they aren't all winners. We still have Linus Karlsson from the original Burrows trade. In 2017 UFA, we signed Gagner, Burmistrov, Del Zotto, and Nilsson. These were all stop gaps for prospects to beat out or to buy time for them to develop. We got a pick for Nilsson when we brought up Demko. We got a pick for Del Zotto. Burmistrov terminated his contract, no harm no foul. Gagner simply got beat out for a spot much earlier than expected by a 165 lbs center and another young college center who both lit up preseason a year after we signed him. Would we not have signed him anyway with one or both of those veteran wingers (who were bottom 6 guys by that point with Gagner supposedly filling a top 6 spot) and missed out on prospect/pick opportunities? Who knows. We signed these guys after the expansion, so there was no concern of losing them to expansion. Oh and we also signed Vanek and perhaps had we kept one or two of those veteran wingers, then we wouldn't have signed him later that summer as well, who was one of the few bright spots of that season and netted us Motte who IMO is a positive add for our team. Beagle was a 4th line center who we probably would've been looking at anyway. Roussel was supposedly a younger version of Burrows, so perhaps we wouldn't have signed him if we had kept Burrows, but then we would've simply kept an aging version of Burrows (one who was 1 year away from being out of the league) and people would be calling out Benning once again for not trading him sooner and wasting away a forward and cap for an even lesser player at the time. If we want to look at the trades in isolation, we gave ourselves a chance to hit a couple of home runs, we didn't. Hansen and Burrows didn't do much for their respective new teams. Neither side "won" or "lost" the trade. We have yet to miss out on any opportunities due to the cap of these players and we still have some prospects in the system and a current roster player from those said UFA signings, so it certainly a negative stretch to suggest we have "lost" the trades due to this reason. -
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
theo5789 replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
These trades were made with the expansion in mind. We didn't want to risk losing these guys for nothing, so we took a gamble on prospects that didn't need protection. It didn't pan out, but they were the right moves and had they worked out, then would've been home runs for guys that were on their way out (proven by the fact that they didn't last much longer in the league after being moved). Everyone was calling for us to trade vets for picks and prospects and we did so and now we complain that we did so? -
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
theo5789 replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Schaller beat out Goldy for a spot at the start of the season. Goldy wasn't replacing what Schaller had provided. If Goldy was an equivalent player to Schaller in their roles, then yes I'd take the cheaper player. Goldy simply wasn't better than the players that he was trying to beat out on the roster. He was behind Baertschi and even he didn't make it last season. -
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
theo5789 replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
DP