Smashian Kassian

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Smashian Kassian last won the day on April 10 2019

Smashian Kassian had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10,734 Gaming the system

About Smashian Kassian

  • Rank
    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Listened to his zoom. Love his attitude. Got a good feeling about this guy. I remember he was fairly highly touted as a prospect, & he ended last year w/ 7 pts in 11 games in Ottawa. That's encouraging. The question for me is where he plays, I don't think he choose VAN to be a healthy scratch. Maybe this means they're considering a Sutter buyout.
  2. Sure but on the other hand they'll have more contracts coming off the books next year. So you might have enough room to split Sutter's deal, allowing us to add a player(s) now & still be fine for next year. Cap space is at its most valuable right now. The thing no ones talking about is Ferland. He's going to try again this year, but if it doesn't work is he going to string his health along for beyond this year? That could be an additional 3.5 we save going forward, but we won't know till the season gets going.
  3. Bring in Hamonic & Leivo - maybe Hawryluk too. I don't see where Koekkoek fits when you have Benn/Juolevi. Miller - Petey - Boeser Pearson - Horvat - Leivo Roussel - Gaudette - Virtanen Motte - Beagle - MacEwen Sutter, Hawryluk(?) Hughes - Schmidt Edler - Myers Juolevi - Hamonic Benn
  4. If we bought out Sutter I wonder if that would give us enough money to also sign Hamonic. Doesn't he want to play in Western Canada? Would really balance out & complete our D IMO. Hughes - Hamonic Edler - Schmidt Juolevi - Myers Could even put Schmidt on the left side if you wanted. Hughes - Hamonic Schmidt - Myers Edler - Rafferty At that point the cap would be tight to find a T6F but I guess you could either (a) try Virt/Baer/Gaud, (b) take a flyer on a cheap replacement ala Athanasiou, (c) look for a later offseason trade - maybe swap of bad contracts type like Guddy/Pearson.
  5. Is the gameplay any different? In NHL 20 one thing that drives me crazy (playing franchise mode - superstar diff) is the change player is absolutely awful & illogical. Never changes to the guy I want - have to push the button 2-3 times & then your caught running around. Super frustrating sometimes. Don't know if that's an issue for anyone else but..
  6. This one really sucks. Its crazy through the rebuild all the talk of Tanev being traded. Personally not expecting him to be back. Yet it still hurts alot to see him in Calgary. This was Tanev's last big contract, and we just couldn't afford him at this point. That's what it boils down too. Can't blame him for a second. Hopefully he gets a proper salute. He played in game 7... He may play for Calgary now but hes a Canuck. Glad his last goal here was a series winner. All the best Tanman.
  7. I admittedly didn't even know the debate was going on. But I saw this on Twitter. I've come to understand saying this seems like marginalization - though I think it comes from a genuinely good place of race being a non-issue in how the person interacts with others/society - but is this really a major issue in this particular election? BC is right there with Ontario as the most liberal province in the country. GVA is one of the most diverse areas. I know there's alot of rural BC that may think differently - but is it wrong to think we're anti-racist enough that this isn't the main issue? (I don't mean to bring that question up in a marginalizing way) I guess to anyone who watched the debate it isn't since I'm the first one bringing it up. Its just my first exposure to the debate. Anyways I'm going to give the debate a shot here. Curious what they tackled.
  8. I honestly don't think Stecher's rights had much value at all. Similar to Hutton except they probably cared more about keeping the option w/ Stech open. Asking him to wait for Barrie is a tough look. For the price Barrie commanded I don't think he was the answer in the top 4, & at the value Stecher got I would've preferred to just do that. (As long as it didn't prevent them from adding Schmidt) Toffoli is the one I do have an issue with. In hindsight the gripe has come up about qualifying Virtanen & letting Toffoli go. For me the preference would've been to trade Virtanen for a draft pick/prospect as quickly as possible & sign Toffoli. If they didn't qualify Jake I don't think he would've been coming back as he had interest around the league - which would've been a very tough look. But I also think I've seen enough of Jake here and Toffoli wanted to come back, he was the right fit. So that would be my complaint so far in free agency. Obviously a defenseman had to be the #1 priority, but I think they should've tried harder to keep Toffoli. I love Tanev & Markstrom as Canucks but we simply couldn't afford to keep them, unfortunately. And my expectation going into FA was that we wouldn't be able to keep Tanev. Marky I was 50/50 on and he got himself a good contract - good for him.
  9. He also said the Canucks 'got worse' defensively. After the media, pretty sure including the VanCast, was saying during the Vegas series that the Canucks defense didn't move the puck well enough, namely Tanev/Edler. (And rightly so) So here we make a move to address that, and the take-away is we got worse defensively. Its like we all acknowledge the defense needs to improve & become more mobile, well you can't change/improve it by bringing back the same group of guys who caused you to make that acknowledgement. Its just like JD Burke saying they shouldn't have qualified Virtanen & kept Toffoli (fair take in a vaccum), when I'm sure he would've been complaining about asset management had they let Jake walk.
  10. I didn't mean you necessarily, I just saw that brought up & its something I keep hearing. Sorry I didn't mean to paint you into an argument.
  11. Listening to it right now, this is amazing. Treated it like a genuine conversation compared to most guys who are pretty bland. What a great dude.
  12. I don't get this whole 'not his plan' criticism that I keep hearing on the radio & reading on twitter. That this merely 'fell into his lap' (despite the fact this Schmidt rumour had been out there for awhile, meaning Vegas had been negotiating with teams - likely including us). OEL wasn't his 'plan' either, that also fell into his lap. At one point the 'plan' was for Markstrom merely as a stopgap for Demko. And for Stecher to be apart of the core. And for Tanev to stick around when everyone wanted him traded in '16, exc, exc. Change is the only constant. And I never remember this criticism when Mike Gillis picked up Ehrhoff. Or when other teams have capitalized on market inefficiencies. The 'plan' changes. Gillis used to always talk about all the different variables - (and around the time of the lockout the 'changing landscape') - that affects trying to acquire players. It's just the way things are. And who's to say they weren't aware this was possible beforehand? Everyone knew Vegas's situation regarding going after & fitting in Pietrangelo. Benning called every team & said he had laid groundwork prior to the draft. He might've had this on the burner for awhile, which is maybe why he held firm on the offers for OEL & Tanev. That could be possible too. Anyways, there are gripes to have - but this isn't one of them IMO
  13. I think it depends what else is involved in the trade. I was a big fan of the OEL idea too. The problem is the acquisition cost & that the contract is much worse. If your giving up a 1st or top prospect, even with Loui or Sutter (which is only short term relief), then I prefer the move we made. If the deal included lesser picks/prospects then maybe I would've preferred rolling the dice on OEL re-gaining #1D form. I think considering the extra term + $$$ on OEL's contract, & the rumored ask, this probably fits a little better.