Alain Vigneault

Whether it's a 500K overpayment for one guy, 1M for another, etc. it all adds up. I don't think any of these guys are bad players, they're just obviously not worth the price and term altogether, even if you do think character/leadership/grit should be compensated. As much as getting deals over the line are important, being patient and having the discipline to walk away when you're getting into dangerous territory is also part of the job. It could be learning. Although, he knows there will be outrage if there are issues with getting Pettersson/Hughes/Demko signed next year. There's definitely a level of pragmatism going on. All things considered, the responses in free-agency have been okay. Getting into this mess in the first place is where the issues lie.

I shouldn't involve myself but the Barrie report is much different than the Myers report. The Barrie report of the Canucks offer can likely be substantiated through evidence of the Canucks interest in years past (tracking him since 2016, almost getting him at 2019 draft, trying hard to get him at this year's TD, etc). In fact, news that he turned down more money was corroborated by reliable people like Rick Dhaliwal, IIRC. So, it wasn't one source saying it. With Myers taking less money, it was just something that leaked on the day of free-agency. There were no reports about other teams interested in Myers, at least not on the mainstream level, much less anybody else reporting that he was moving to Vancouver AND taking less money to do so. I believe it was Botchford that started talking about the possibility of the Canucks being interested in Myers just past the start of the season during the 2018/19. Eventually, much like the notion of Bobrovsky to Florida, it just became a foregone conclusion that he would end up in Vancouver. It makes a lot more sense for management to leak that they signed him for less to show that they managed to strike a good deal since many people already assumed they get him anyway as they were the only noted "serious" contender for his services.

On paper, it's a fine tandem but it will come down to system. Whether the system is good enough will be dependent on the defence. As of today, the defence as a whole is not better than how it was yesterday, even if we did add a great defender in Schmidt. Relying on rookies like Juolevi/Chatfield/Rafferty is not a terrible solution but its certainly not a great one either. I like the Neidermayer comparison but his last game was over 10 years ago. The money structure in the NHL has changed since then. The thing about the contracts that made things bad was that both term AND money were given. It's one thing to commit to getting guys locked in long at a cheaper rate or short-term while securing a bigger bag, but we gave them both. Jim got taken to the cleaners on July 1st, 2018 and he really should have known when to have walked away since it was bottom-six players he was dealing with. Get it wrong with Eriksson? That's forgivable for a player of his (then) calibre. Gave a bit too much term to 50 pt Gagner? Well, he was halfway out the league in 2015 before but rebounded nicely to earn this type of contract. Shame it happened again so soon. Get it wrong with career 20 and 30 pt bottom-six players? That's a sackable offence and you have only yourself to blame. Like with Myers, Barrie, Lucic (well-noted that he tried to sign him and then trade for him), etc. when Jim likes a guy, he really wants them. That's been his downfall at times and it's showing now.

Yep. Mitch Korn is the guy you're referring to and he's one of the best. He certainly gave Lehner the boost he needed and made Varlamov/Greiss a really reliable tandem since joining the Islanders. FWIW, I liked the Holtby signing too, mostly because he has a wealth of playoff experience, including the Cup final win. I'm not so much worried about his numbers (I think they'll go up) but I am interested to seeing how he plays under our system where we rely heavily on the goaltending seeing the shots. Markstrom thrived on that from a mental standpoint. I'd have to watch 8 years of videos to maybe see what Washington was like. Ian Clark will have a load on his plate but he's got a fairly decent goalie to try and rehabilitate. Ideally, we can secure bridge deals and lower the costs slightly, COVID and all, but the RFAs in recent off-seasons have demonstrated that they want their money. I was saying earlier that Rantanen should be a good reference point for Pettersson with us preparing to go up an extra 500k or so due to his C position. With Hughes, it should be lower by 1-2M but him and Makar play such a unique game as defenders and they could fetch sums that are market anomalies as a result. For instance, who do you compare Hughes to as a reference point? Torey Krug? Maybe from an offensive standpoint but defensively, who knows? I think we will see movement on a Sutter/Baertschi buy-out relative soon, perhaps a trade involving the one that doesn't get bought out. That will help things but only marginally so. The reality is that have to find a way out of one of Roussel/Beagle or bite a massive bullet on Eriksson. We may get "lucky" with Ferland and LTIR but that's not really a feasible solution in this moment. You are right, these unprecedented conditions will affect every team and force teams into internal caps/less real money spending/etc.. With that said, we're suffering because of overcommitments we made to the bottom-six on contracts we signed over 2 years ago, which in turn are contributing into whatever restrictions we have or implications we are facing.

1. For Calgary? Don't think it mattered to them because the gave term and money to Tanev. But maybe they would have offered more term and money to other free-agents had things not been altered. With that said, for the league as a whole, it was a consideration. 2. Yes, that's why I posted that as a possible reason for why he may have gotten more. We'll never know because the signings happened in different years with different teams needing goalies at those times. One team (Florida) actively moved salary out and encouraged their starter to retire in efforts to bring in this guy. They had no intention of leaving July 1st without Bobrovsky and were going to pay him no matter what. The other team (Calgary) simply made their pitch and won out. They may have had him as a long-term target but they certainly didn't do anything pre-FA to ensure that he would be their guy. The opportunity came, they seized it.

What a day this has been! Baer dropped from 1st OVR to 4th OVR

1. Nope, not short. I just meant to articulate that even with many noted suitors, he got less money and term than Bobrovsky. A flat cap and expansion draft obviously factored in. 2. Depends on who you ask. He had more years of experience as a starter than Markstrom. I'm too lazy to find links (I know, that weakens my point) but many in the hockey circle knew that Florida was where his eye was at. That's why they moved Bjugstad for a UFA Brassard and why Luongo (with 3 years left) suddenly had "injuries" that ended his career. Columbus was always a possibility but once it was clear Panarin would be leaving, that killed any chance for Bobrovsky staying.

Didn't get around to this previously, apologies. Right now, the team is currently going into the season with worse goaltending, less depth on defence, and a weaker forward group than the one that played in the playoffs. The additions of Holtby, Hawlyuk, and Schmidt are good but only Schmidt is an upgrade since he's replacing Tanev. The problems lie in retention of our core pieces. Pettersson/Hughes/Demko are all due for money. This means that the team will be getting gutted even further than this off-season since Pearson and Edler's money will be going to that. This isn't really a one-off situation developing here where after this season concludes, normalcy will resume. As it stands, there needs to be A LOT of movement of salary in the team to ensure we sign our guys AND find adequate replacements for the complementary pieces we'll be losing. We have some good pieces internally like Podkolzin, Hoglander, maybe Lind, but throwing rookies into a mix will still pose its risks. I hope I'm wrong but this may be a 2-3 season setback. I wish Jim the best but with 6 years into the job, there's only so many mistakes one can make before time's up.

After eating the amount of mud you did in the Nordstrom thread, nobody should owe you any explanation for these things ever again. Consider this a gift because you and some other peeps could learn a thing or two, and you're seemingly a glutton for attention and humiliation. 1. The reality of a flat cap and an expansion draft looming means that teams are more hesitant to commit big money and big term. 2. GMs, especially the GMs that love certain players, will pay big money to secure the players they love, regardless if the market dictates otherwise. Consider that Sergei Bobrovsky had just two destinations to go to: Columbus and Florida. He wasn't going to return to Columbus so really it was just Florida. Dale Tallon, a noted admirer of Bobrovsky, handed him 70M over 7 years when he was the only true bidder in that auction. Flash-forward a year, multiple teams are in for Markstrom, and he only bags 36M over 6 years. Why did Bobrovsky command more than Markstrom? Demand? No. Myers got 6M because Benning loves the player, not because of the demand. Winnipeg fans couldn't wait until Myers left because he was that overpaid at 5.5M for them. There may have been teams interested in Myers but I will speculate with my life that they did not offer anything close to the 6M he got. Benning in the past has tried to trade for Barrie. He chased him relentlessly at many points during his tenure and nearly landed him at the 2019 draft. In short, he loves the player. I don't doubt for one moment he offered 5M+ for that reason. Like I said, Barrie is a sucker for not taking that 5M guaranteed if that report is true The only explanation I can give is that he looked at the prospect of playing PP1 with McDavid and saw many points and many dollar signs as a result. That same opportunity would not have been given to Barrie in Vancouver because Hughes already has that PP1 spot. Don't bother tagging me, quoting me, mentioning me. I won't be discussing this or anything else with you as you will be promptly placed on the ignore list. Learn the game of puck and maybe I'll reconsider

Tbh, he's a fool for not taking Vancouver's offer for that exact reason related to guaranteed money in a flat cap. My guess is that he thinks he'll collect more money next off-season after he likely puts up 60+ points playing with McDavid on PP1. Let's be honest, he wasn't going to play in front of Hughes on PP1 here so he's betting on himself. Hope it works out for him or else he's a sucker for not taking our money while he had the chance.

You're on fire today. I love you and never forget that.

Francesco Aquilini told me.

The most bizarre thing is how the original comparison was between Nordstrom at 700K and Roussel at 3M. Not sure why Hawrlyuk's name even got brought up here lol.

"No bad UFA signings" Yeah, because he had no flipping cap-space to make signings in the first place. And even then, he almost signed Tyson Barrie to north of 5M dollars. He's done the bare minimum to make this an "acceptable" off-season.

All facts here.