Solinar
-
Posts
578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Solinar
-
-
Hoglander, Rathbone, Juolevi, Pettersson, and Hughes are who you build around. Podkohlzin is up and coming. You want to make trades with a focus on not just the now, but where you'll be contract wise in a few years time, and who you have coming in to replace from within the organization, as well as where your organization depth is weakest. Right now, the weak link in our team is defense. Our forwards and our goaltending are where you should focus on trading to address that. And you also have to realize, that sometimes the whole is greater than the individual parts, and if you start messing around too greatly with the whole, you might put together something that looks good on paper, but doesn't have the right combination and styles of play to work together as a cohesive unit. The greatest insight you can have is how each line will work together, what each individual player on that line does to make the whole greater than the individuals, who drives play, who is just along for the ride, what each player needs to have the greatest possible chance for success, and build that way.
-
1
-
-
Choose one. Focus. You sound like you're playing a video game, which is cool, but will detract from what you're trying to do. Secondly, nobody is doing this unless you have an absolutely toxic locker room you have to fix. And even then, you aren't going to get the returns you think because players talk, as does management. It is a pretty big club out there. I'd focus on the Hughes trade, as it is the most likely to be able to be pulled off. The return here is something, but needs some work.
I'd also stay off the Eichel train. Absolutely no touch till you see him back in action. Unless it is a couple of firsts and they're taking back Myers and give us a prospect on D, you are very buyer beware committing actual assets to this, because we just don't know how he's going to play with his injury. Any team that is thinking about this, is also thinking about that.
Thanks for coming out, and hope you try again.
-
1
-
-
Vancouver, B.C. - Vancouver Canucks General Manager Jim Benning announced today that the club has signed forward Jason Dickinson to a three-year contract worth an average annual value of $2.65 million.
"Jason was an important addition for our forward group this summer and we're pleased to have agreed to terms with him on a three-year deal," said Benning. "He's a versatile player that can play on both the wing and at centre, and is also a strong penalty killer."
That's a good signing, for a good player at a great price. That's the Benning we know and love when it comes to actually signing RFA's to good deals for good term/money. Now to get a hold of the UFA signing Jim Benning and smack him!
-
- Popular Post
The Greatest Canuck of all time is going to be the one that can actually be the one who leads us to Lord Stanley's Cup. Sorry, love the team, love the players as a fan of the team, but I reserve to hold out till they actually come together and win it all. I've been alive for all 3 cup runs, and damn it, I don't want to be like my father, who died before they got it. I hope to be there, in Vancouver, when they go all the way, and I'll have an extra beer for my father on that day.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
I am vaccinated. By this point, with the technological backbone we've created, we should be able to do what we've done. We have all the tools, information, and necessary tech to pull this off. And in this time schedule. Although it was fast in terms of other vaccines, what isn't taken into account was the vast amount of resources that we've had to throw at this, and the vast amounts of science we've had to push at this.
The numbers also dictate that being vaccinated, at this point, gives you a far better chance of survival and lesser overall detrimental effects from the disease itself. The vaccinated who even get sick have a less than 1% chance of negative outcomes including death/long covid symptoms. Hey, that's pretty &^@#ing good, right? But the media doesn't talk about that.
80% of people are vaccinated, and the 20% who aren't, have reasons. There are societal, class, and ideological reasons for it. A lot of it is class driven. The lower class doesn't trust a system that has largely treated it like crap, and basically brow beats it given every opportunity, but does little to actually address the problems facing them. We need to deal with that.
We are going to see sickness, and we aren't going to save everyone. That's just a fact. Life is a risk, George Carlin famously joked about it. Stop trying to save everyone, and save those you can. We'll deal with the other issues as we go, like we have always done. It is infuriating, but punishing people before even trying to effectively talk to them is kind of ....well, prejudice. Writing them off is also kind of prejudice. We figure out the language, we figure out what we need to do, and we address it.
I'm a numbers person, but my reasons can generally only apply to me. But you have to ask yourself this, the system is set up to protect itself, and if the vaccine was the fear thing that people push, you really think the world without 80% of those 'sheep' is going to survive really well? Now think of the 20%.... Do the math. It isn't pretty.
-
2 minutes ago, cuporbust said:
Nope. Nobody will acknowledge this as truth but me
You aren't alone, and the fact that the general public has been left to squabble amongst themselves, and police policy themselves on each other, speaks to the void in leadership, and the easily exploited situation that didn't have to be. For the longest time, there has been a major communication issue on this particular issue, and no push back against power for lies, bad policy, mistakes, poor language decisions, and in general reactiveness to the issues, instead of proactiveness. And then you have a $&!#storm created by people with power on both sides that make the issue even worse. We needed solidarity, we needed openness, transparency, and fair and just policy. What we've constantly gotten is brow beaten by idiots who have no idea from moment to moment. Policy that was poorly written and generally facilitated punishing action against the middle and lower class, and allowed for the upper class to outright skirt or profit off of the situation. Medical stances that were largely politic, or misguided, and easily pulled apart by the general public for the farce they were. AND SO MANY LIES!!! Don't wear a mask by Fauci being the one that has caused the biggest problem as everyone seized onto it. This is natural, when all evidence points to a lab leak. And this is for your benefit, as we've seen the top 1% of the world's financial elite profit off of a pandemic for the largest upwards shift of wealth in the history of mankind as we know it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
There is also this. People simply don't trust a system that has been set up to actively work against the interests of the general public, and in favour of a monied few. Time and time again, the system has screwed over those who aren't in a position to push back against it. Surprise, when the system goes, I'm here to help, a lot of people aren't in a position to trust them anymore, and the system is doing very little to deal with that. I guess maybe we shouldn't let money dictate public policy so that they can get rich at our expense.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
You know the funny thing, when I looked at the money pushing the vaccine hesitancy, and saw that people like Rupert Murdoch, who's been making a killing off stirring the pot on this issue was first in line to get the shot, it put a lot of things in perspective for me. At this point, 80% are going to get it, and 20 % definitely aren't. Some are on the fence, but most are pretty set in their ways, and all can pull up information to push their points. We can't save everyone. But we can control ourselves and what we do, and don't put our energy towards.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Rick_theRyper said:
Gonna get some heat for this but they really should have held off on a Pearson extension so early on. It wouldn’t have been the end of the world if he walked. That $$ May end up being the difference maker here in getting a long term deal done.
That seems to be the course here in Vancouver, really good deals, filled with questionable ones that don't make sense in the light of the others, that eat up valuable cap space that could be spent locking up our young stars that people actually come to see. Sorry to all those with Pearson Jersey's, but c'mon, we could probably have signed both Petey and Hughes with that extra 3.5. Especially as the league has gone stupid with defensemen salaries.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, RomanP said:
I don't disagree on the long term, but the longer the deal is - the higher AAV they will want. If I was a gambling man (and I am :-)) - I would bet that the salary cap in 3-4 years will be significantly higher than the current one because of the new TV deal and fans going bananas after all the missed games during COVID. I wouldn't be surprised to see a salary cap closer to $90 mil in 3 years. Which should provide us with some extra options to pay more to our star players. It will also give everyone more time to evaluate the true value of these players and see if they consistently improve or start stagnating.
With escrow factored in, and the flat cap of now, why wouldn't you, as a business person largely selling yourself as the asset, take a short term deal now, at a lower cap hit to minimize escrow, and maximize the return on your dollars for when the cap is higher, and you'd gain a higher percentage of it. I wouldn't be surprised if both Hughes and Pettersson are dealing at the angle of a short term deal, and the team wants to lock them up for a longer term deal from the vantage point of it being a deal 3 years down the road from now.
-
1
-
-
One would also be wise to actually criticize our player development system, since most of our most successful additions to the club actually avoid our player development system, and the players that go thru it....name anyone in our top 9, or our top 4 on D that have gone thru our AHL development system in an impactful way. That is very problematic. Even Podkholzin, coming in this year, is the product of another teams development system.
-
1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:
Can you please show me a current NHL team that has drafted (consistently) “two NHL players per draft” that actually stuck with their teams beyond one season?
Again, look at the Canucks:
Current: Pettersson, Boeser, Hoglander, Horvat, Podkolzin, Hughes, Juolevi, Rathbone, Demko,
Incoming: Dipietro
Former: Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin
Guys like Dickinson, Miller, Pearson, Garland, Highmore, and Motte were brought in from our picks (directly and indirectly).
So again, I’m not sure if I’m understanding your argument.
Motte came in for Vrbata, Dickenson with a 3rd. Pearson was for Gudbrandson. Highmore was for Gaudette. Miller and Garland were both gained with first round picks, the latter with the 9 oa.
But you have to look a little deeper. Gudbranson and Sutter were both brought in with prospects/picks that could probably have garnered better players. Forsling was traded for Clendening. Vey was also the result of a 2nd. So when I critique our pro scouting, it comes with an eye that the amateur scouting department has done a fabulous job establishing value and valuable players with the picks it has been allowed to use. Whereas trading those picks has resulted in a bunch of meh players, most of which we usually have to walk away from in some form or another. And we won't get into UFA signings that have handcuffed us and cost us in either cap space or assets to move.
Our GM's major strength is his drafting, and he has a problem with trading his most valuable strength. His major weaknesses is UFA and at the beginning of his tenure, trading for shortcuts in the teambuilding process. All of these have been discussed ad nauseum. And to ignore them on the basis of one thing is to not see the whole picture. Our player pipeline is awesome, when you consider almost 50 years of futility to the point of Benning becoming GM. So, yes, he's our best drafting GM in team history, but that's kind of sad considering how long it took to get someone to fix that. And as we open a new window of competitiveness, we are constrained by the cap, once again, have to sign players to bridge contracts instead of locking them in long term, and still have questionable depth, which we could have had more of, if we had just ....drafted and stuck to the process.
I hope we do well this year, but looking at the totality of the club, we've sacrificed the future once again, for the now, and although we have a bright now...it'll collapse if we don't keep drafting, and drafting well, and we can't afford to keep bleeding as many picks as we do, for what we do gain.
-
2
-
-
Okay, while I understand that drafting high as compared to drafting later in the round, is different, we should also keep in mind that you should still be able to find 2 nhl players per draft. I'd expect a star to be found every 3-5 years, and a superstar every 5-7 years at that pace. The Gillis regime, while successful on ice, were absolutely terrible drafting. There was no excuse, and it severely hampered the success of the big club and was addressed by a multitude of trades. Nonis was better, but really whiffed on some of the players he could have gotten.
Benning's strength does seem to be the draft, and he has delivered what would be a strong pipeline of talent, but the argument is that it could have been better if he wasn't just so bad at pro scouting. I mean, f#cking terrible. Like, oh my god, do you even watch NHL games or comprehend how the NHL works. The player he could have gotten with the picks he's traded away, which are high value return picks, we could have an even better team than we do now, and we wouldn't have to dip as badly into free agency as we do. He also seems to have forwards and goaltenders down pat, but damn boy, you seriously do not understand defensemen. Defense is voodoo to Benning. I don't understand why, he used to be a freaking defensemen, but...hell, can't be good at all 3 positions.
Benning would probably be better suited to the AGM position, and would be utilized heavily to handle drafting and development. Then a GM who could get a handle on contracts, ufa signings, pro scouting, and...communication, would serve the club in the GM chair. I mean really, rain man would probably have an easier time during a press conference.
The GM is responsible for many things, and although you are allowed to have strengths and weaknesses, his strength *drafting* is severely hampered by his pro scouting acumen and his asset management, and ability to figure out the d-core which is basically still a shambles because it seems he doesn't understand the position he's trying to fix. That being said, when he does make a mistake, and does figure out how to fix it, we rarely see the same mistake again. That means there's at least a little hope as we go forward, and the team that he's built, right now on paper, is probably the best team he's iced, on paper, during his tenure. I'll withhold from donating to the firebenning campaign till December of this year. While hopeful, I am seriously tired of this team not being able to get beyond the fixation on size, 'intangibles', and thinking that we should be able to punch the puck into the net, as opposed to having enough skill to do it the ...I don't know, hockey way. This season is going to be a make or break year for me, as a fan. I'm tired...it has been nearly 40 years of cheering for this team. Please, I hope this is the year we turn a corner.
-
Just watched Moneyball again last night. I like the statistical breakdown, but it also illustrated just how dependent it was on playing the exact players in the exact situation, and even then, you couldn't take forgranted numerous other circumstances. I like where you're going with this, I love the work, and love the explanation. And if presented with that, would be curious to see what that lineup would do over a 20 game sample size. It also helps to identify how weak the 4th line is compared to the top 9, and illustrates what you'd need to do to fix it, and what type of players you're looking at.
-
1
-
-
Hmm, opening night, 10 weeks away, right? But predictions that will hopefully age well...
Miller Petersson Boesser 70pts/85pts/75pts
Pearson Horvat Garland 45pts/60pts/60 pts
Hoglander Dickenson Podkholzin 45pts/30pts/40pts
Motte Sutter Highmore 15pts/15pts/10pts
OEL Myers 40pts/25pts
Hughes Hamonic 45pts/25pts
Rathbone Poolman 25pts/15pts
Demko looks like 60 starts, lets say 35 wins
Halak 22 starts let's say 10 wins?
Extras Schenn Macewan Diguiseppe
So 45ish wins, and some loser points... 90pts range I would guess with the lineup without major injuries to key players. I think that we are strong up front, with question marks, but not like OMG!! where are the goals coming from question marks. This would probably be the best bottom 6 I've seen on this team in a decade. Pearson is kind of a drag on the 2nd line, but that is still a pretty good 2nd line. Having Sutter in less of a role should help with injury problems, dickenson should help take the heat off of Horvat, and that strong first line should take the best defensive deployments off of the other lines and allow for a few more goals.
Our defense is a major ? and gamble. You're expecting a bounce back season from Hughes and OEL, and a quick synergy on talent back there and them being to be able to work together quickly. We did bring in a good resource in Shaw, he did have input on personnel coming in. So, the proof will be in the pudding that the sum of all of those parts will be better than they have shown individually.
The fun part will be our special teams. I think our power play will break out and be a major threat as we are able to ice 2 very competent and skilled power play units that you could also mix and match when opposition teams start to figure out a certain set. Penalty kill, should be about the same but it'll be interesting to see if Green will go with some younger faces in that group. I think from the tape I've watched of Podkholzin, and watching Hoglander last season, that those two could make an impact and would be intriguing to watch and provide some offensive pushback in terms of short handed goals, of which Motte and Sutter are already really under-rated.
In goal, well, Demko should be primed to go, and Halak has proven, that he still has some left in the tank. It'll be about the defensive structure Green, Baumgartner and Shaw work to maximize their strengths while minimizing being in a shooting gallery.
Is this team a contender...no. They aren't built in such a way as to overwhelm you in any specific area. The goals will sometimes be pretty, but more than likely will be off the rush and some will be gritty. Our top line can run with the tops in the league, and our 2nd, freed from defensive expectations will be able to be a really good counter thrust to other teams weaker lines. But our 3rd, oh our 3rd, that could be where the money is. IF, if Pods doesn't struggle, and those 3 get chemistry, watch out. And our 4th is ...well, meh. But it should do the job, right? And it is only 3 million all together. Hell, that is one Beagle!
I think we'll surprise some teams, and if we play it right, can get the points we need in the first half to support us as teams catch on to what we are in the 2nd. Then when it hits the playoffs, it's a whole new ball game.
-
It really comes down to to what our two big RFA's take on their next deals. We still need some more players, some more depth, and some cap space. With the escrow clawback set the way it is for the next couple of years, would it be unreasonable to hope to sign both players to identical 2 year 7 million contracts, and let them earn the chance at the big money on their next contract, while that would leave our team more....cap flexible, but would also allow them to make more take home money? And just think the love of the fans for the boys if they could come up big at the same time? It would definitely throw some shade at Toronto, especially considering how their big four have become like an anchor wrapped around their necks in terms of playoff success and fielding a balanced team?
-
I don't know if we're the most improved team, or on the rise, but I do have to say, we are better 'right now' than we were at the end of the season. Our forward group is deeper and stronger. OEL is a definite upgrade on Edler. We have Hughes, Rathbone, OEL on the left, Myers, Hamonic, Poolman/Schenn on the backend, and Halak should be serviceable, tho his cap hit may end up, with the cap penalty of holtby...costing the same as keeping Holtby.
We aren't moving Miller down the lineup, we can have a 3rd line of Hoglander Dickenson Podkholzin and that could be what makes or breaks this team's playoff aspirations, beyond injuries. That line comes together, and gives 25-40 pts each, we're laughing. The defense is a mystery, where I don't know where the points are really going to come from, and, it is important to get points from the backend. Right now, we need 40 pts from both Hughes and OEL, 20 each from myers and hamonic, and 10-15 from the combination of whatever the hell the 3rd pairing is going to be. First line has to give 60+ points each or a combination of that. 2nd line has to give 40-50 pts each. 4th line has to come in at 10+ pts each.... And you know what, I legitimately start to see most of that. That isn't even really being a homer for my favourite team. These are legitimate and achievable goals, and that could mean us really feasting on a weak division, and showing some surprise to the other teams.
So, while I don't think we are the most improved team in the league, and I don't think personally that we have the depth to really be considered contenders, I do think we are able to legitimately think of being a playoff team. And once we get there, we just have to be better than Toronto to be considered successful, right?
-
1
-
-
I'm almost interested to see how Arizona will do this season. Being the dumping ground for the leagues unwanted, and a lot of fan bases most hated, you'd hope that that would galvanize them to go out there and show them they still have a little in the tank. If they could do that, imagine the picks Arizona could receive from trading a bunch of specialized players at the TDL with a host of 'intangibles' and 'experience'.
-
Tampa says yes to this deal every day of the week, and we shouldn't allow whomever is going to propose this to get to the phone!! Why are we helping a team we're competing against eventually, to be better. Cernak isn't worth the 9th overall. And taking Johnson off of their hands and giving them cap room isn't costing us the 9th overall. We need to leverage like we did with Vegas for Schmidt. I don't deny that we could use Cernak, I don't deny that we could make a deal similar to what you're suggesting, but I'd sure as heck wouldn't tie the 9th overall into it. There are some really good players in that range that project much higher than what we're receiving, so as to make the trade one I wouldn't do. But I like where you're going with this...
-
1
-
-
While I do like the players you're talking about, I also really think that we'd be better off keeping Lind and watching him graduate to a fixture on our team for years to come. We have one more year of financial cap hell to go thru, and our moves must be shrewd, thrifty, and with an eye towards the future, without selling off assets we surely need. And at the same time, it helps us to limit our helping of a rival team in their struggles. Eriksson will be waived, saving us 1 million, and we can do the same with Roussel and Beagle if necessary. Ferland is basically in the same boat as Dorsett was after his injury. If we're lucky, Seattle takes one of either Myers or Holtby, which will allow us to make some further moves. But we shouldn't be trading for pieces that aren't long term acquisition from our relatively shallow but effective prospect pool. Especially to put people in the way of our own prospects graduating onto our own team.
-
I didn't mind his play, thought he could have gotten a foothold on some team given the right situation. Now it seems you either have to fit the top 6/bottom 6 mold or you are done. Not skilled enough for one, not gritty and defensive enough for the other. Yet you see the really good teams, and they're running 4 lines that can score, and back check, and you have to wonder, do we hinder ourselves with this role bs, or are we trying to make the best 4 lines we can, and hopefully we can outscore and excite our way forward?
-
I had to look him up too. Just not that familiar with what would be a depth guy in another organization that I don't follow. I do remember him coming back after a year off, but had to go out and connect the dots. Wish him all the best, you made it to the best league in the world, and stuck it for a few years. Go out, discover yourself, and maybe find some happiness and meaning outside of the sport.
-
2
-
-
-
The problem with our team is that it is built around this premise. The top 2 lines score, and hold your power play units. The bottom 2 lines make up your pk and shut down. In today's NHL, you have to be able to roll 4 lines that can chip in, play defense, and not get their teeth kicked in when the top line from the opposing team jumps over the boards. If you have a good, solid, and offensively productive for bottom 6 players, bottom 6, that provides rest, and support for your top 6. What we have is a throw back to an ideology that just isn't applicable to the game anymore in a successful and positive way. The bottom 6, is overpaid, unproductive, and isn't a #1 pk unit. Change any of those, and we probably aren't sitting here in the comments section. Change it up, give people different roles, coach the &^@# out of them and make them do things like, I don't know, Virtanen and Gaudette kill penalties. One of the bottom six plays on the top pp unit. Anything. Because this is getting a little out of hand. Intangibles, leadership, and big skates and a heavy game only get you so far when you can't win hockey games with players that can't score goals.
-
1
-
Elias Pettersson | Quinn Hughes - Contract Discussion Thread
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Keep on checking on this thread and still nothing!!?? C'mon, it's supposed to be anytime now, so why not NOW!!!!! Can't they tell how excited we are just for training camp, let alone to see this team in action to start the regular season. I just bought my package to go to the coast and watch Van vs Winny on the 19th of November. C'mon already. That's a normal we're going to lose game, that's how much I believe these guys have turned the corner.