-
Posts
7,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Gollumpus
-
What are you Listening to...Video Game Edition
Gollumpus replied to Angry Goose's topic in White Noise
regards, G. -
Yes, but my point is, why would Seattle choose him? There will be more than just Bowey being exposed by Chicago in this draft, no? regards, G.
-
Hmm, well I'm going to have to go with, it's just you. regards, G.
-
Perhaps a trade? For example, Chicago will be protecting Keith (NMC). They have Murphy, De Haan and an under used Madison Bowey who meet the requirements for the draft. It's likely a pretty safe bet that if Seattle wanted to select a d-man from Chicago, then it wouldn't be Bowey, who is sitting there at around league minimum and one more year left on his current deal. I believe the Canucks could get him for (hopefully) something reasonable, and then he becomes the exposed guy and Myers goes on the protected list with Schmidt and Juolevi. regards, G.
-
And why does Benn sign such a deal? Other than it seems sorta' convenient for the Canucks? regards, G.
-
So, the Canucks will do this openly with Benn? I'm assuming that Benn would be aware of any such possibility to expose him in the ED, and he'd ask for a hefty raise in both cap and term, with some sort of NTC clause. I'm assuming it wouldn't be a huge amount, but it would be for more than his previous deal. Now, imagine that Seattle looks at that contract, and says, "They're paying that for a bottom pairing d-man? Pass. Let's go for one of their young forwards". Where does that scenario leave the Canucks? Answer: stuck with Benn, under contract for more years and term than some here would want the team on the hook for. Sounds risky. regards, G.
-
Yup. I can't say that I have too contrary a view with any of the above. I do believe that Myers is a better d-man than many here give him credit. The thing that I'm really mulling over is how to best move ahead while dealing with past contracts, and/or sacrificing the near future because of said bad contacts, or having too many more bottom pairing d-men filling the 4 - 7 spots on the roster. Meh, I'll let Benning decide this stuff. It's too nice a day to be taking hockey. regards, G.
-
Sounds like a plan, assuming he wants to come here, and there isn't a bidding war for his services etc. I believe, "Git 'er done, Jim", is the usual end comment? regards, G.
-
I don't necessarily dispute this, but where I do have a concern, or two, is who fills that roster spot in the short term (maybe 3+ years, which is the remaining term on Myers' contract). As I have noted elsewhere, the Canucks are potentially without Myers, Edler, Benn and Hammonic from this season's defense, and Yay! for all those who think that this will be a good thing. The team does not have anyone waiting in the wings to fill these spots. This leaves trades (more assets out the door), or signing UFAs, for how and for how long? See anyone you like, and for how much? https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2022/age/all/defense Sure, Myers' spot could/should be filled by a prospect (or a Stetcher type player), but it sounds like you are talking as though that great top-4 is already in place, which it is not, and it will not be for at least another 3 - 5 years assuming growth through the draft, or from spending in the UFA market, or via trades. Not disputing the cap situation. People around here are already complaining that the defense isn't good enough. Do the Canucks currently have anyone on the roster who is as good, or better than Myers (other than Schmidt), or that the team wants to develop (Hughes, Juolevi)? Anyone down on the farm hasn't (as yet) shown that they can cut it in NHL - yes, it's all Green's fault. Having Myers' contract on the books is a limiting factor, but unless he can be replaced by someone who is as good (or better), then I view him (or rather his cap hit) as a necessary evil. regards, G.
-
This is on the boob-tube tonight: That scene always reminds me of this opening scene from "Diva" (1981): regards, G.
-
I did notice your idea of re-signing Hammonic and/or Edler in order to leave them exposed in the draft, but I suspect that that strategy wouldn't be very successful. Each of them has a NMC for their current contract, which indicates that they aren't interested in being moved, at least currently. If they were interested in playing in Seattle then they could sign their own deal with Seattle and not go through the Canucks as a middle man. I suspect that a lot of players who don't want to go to Seattle will be demanding NMC or some some form of NTC to avoid a sudden move out west. An additional point, people on here have talked about UFAs not wanting to play here for various reasons. One of the reasons given was how management treated their players. Signing a guy just to leave him exposed in the draft would be something that other players would remember, and signing them would cost just that bit extra. On the other hand, trading for a guy who meets the draft requirements is okay (AFAIK). That guy is your b____. Trade for someone with a low cap/term (Bowey?) and leave him exposed while Myers sits on the protected list. Forwards being left exposed was something I mentioned in a different thread. I went with Pettersson, Miller, Boeser, Horvat, and Motte but the remaining positions were a toss up for me. I could see my way to protect MacEwen, but not Lind over one of Gaudette or Virtanen. It comes down to track record (Gaudette/Virtanen are playing more at an NHL level - yes there are criticisms), and who do I think the Canucks could get more for, should they ever be traded (currently, that is Gaudette and Virtanen). regards, G.
-
Yeah he'll be what, 100 years old when his current contract is done? Assuming Juolevi and Hughes continue to progress, they will be the likely candidates for left D playing ahead of Myers. Depending on where the Canucks finish this season (making the most of a bad thing here) maybe they get one of those pretty decent d-man prospects from this draft. Until that time, I'd be okay with having Myers in the bottom pairing being able to move up as needed. If Myers does leave before his contract expires (in 3 years), then I'd want it to be via trade. Purely from a cap perspective, sure moving Myers out might be useful. Who takes his spot on the roster when he is gone? Who is a better d-man on this team who is currently not playing regularly? As the answer is "nobody", I'm assuming that a number of folks will assume that some UFA can be signed with a portion of the money currently being paid to Myers. And what about Edler, and what about Benn, and what about Hammonic, who will all be UFAs at the end of the season? This will leave the Canucks with Schmidt(L/R), Hughes(L), Juolevi(L) and......? regards, G.
-
I suspect others' views (and mine), on who they believe should be left unprotected involves, in part, who they believe Seattle would likely take from the various Canuck players being made available, a guy with a track record, or a prospect with little to no NHL experience. Both Gadjovich and Lind are 22, and some would suggest that they should already be seeing at least a few games at the NHL level. I also recall that there have been comments regarding Gadjovich's skating and a need for improvement in that area. Without such improvement does Gadjovich's potential result in him being nothing more than the newest Darren Archibald? I suspect Seattle scouts have reported this information. Gaudette and Virtanen have produced at the NHL level (with some criticism on how they play). Chances are (despite any warts) they still would be picked over the AHL guys, so those would be the two you would protect. I'm not as optimistic as some regarding the value of Gaudette/Virtanen in any pre-draft trade. One significant drawback is that either would have to be left unprotected with their new team, or placed on the new team's protected list (which leaves someone else off of that team's protected list). If the Canucks acquired a forward who they really wanted to keep, in a trade with some other team, then that guy would likely be protected while one of Lind/Gadjovich gets bounced. The risk of them being taken might be small, but it would be a risk, yes? I'm also holding out hope that the Canucks get a hold of a d-man who can fill that draft requirement for games played etc. Perhaps they could target someone like Bowey (in Chicago) who has only played 2 games this season, has a low caphit contract which expires in 2022, but he meets the requirements for a guy who has to be left unprotected in the draft. Get Bowey (or someone like him) and Myers can be placed on the protected list with Schmidt and Juolevi. regards, G.
-
I agree, more or less. Holtby at only one year left on his current deal doesn't seem to be that attractive an option for Seattle, but he does fill the requirement that the Canucks must meet for his position at the draft. I'm thinking it will indeed depend on things like cap, the number of other d-men who Seattle may value (for whatever reasons) over Myers. I'm still holding out hope on the Canucks picking up a d-man for cheap (Bowey?) who can fulfill the requirements for the draft and allow Myers to be one of the three defensemen who will be protected. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle regards, G.
-
Got to say that I'm handling the Canucks not having the Cup (yet). The sun comes up every morning (even if it's cloudy). I have someplace that is warm, dry, safe, pleasant and comfortable. There's food in the larder. I have a support network or family, friends and acquaintances who brighten the day. Even with the lack of movies and some other such distractions, there's lots to do. And so on... regards, G.
-
Pearson and Benn will be UFAs by the draft so you got two extra spaces to use up. regards, G.
-
Unless the team could pick up another d-man who could be exposed, then Myers is (probably) the d-man on the outs. Holtby has age (31) and term arguing against Seattle taking him, but one never knows. My guess would be Myers or Virtanen, and it depends on what other d-men Seattle have targeted, and what their cap situation would be like, in which case it could be Virtanen (unless they take Myers with an eye to trading him). regards, G.
-
Yeah, Myers has his drawbacks (age - 31, cap and term) against him which apply for him staying here, *or* for going there. On the other hand, if Seattle already has drafted enough veteran d-men by the time they get around to considering Vancouver's list, maybe a young forward with potential, and a reasonable contract would be of greater interest. regards, G.
-
There are two forwards who could be traded off as rentals: Pearson and Sutter. Either might get as high as a 2nd/decent prospect in a bidding war, but I'm assuming the return for each will be lower. Benn, Edler and Hammonic would be the likely trade choices from among the defensemen. This being said, I don't see Edler or Hammonic wanting to accept a trade, but there is always a slight chance that they might. What level of pick might the Canucks get for Benn as a rental? Perhaps a 4th? (Asking as a general question to the readership) I'm doubtful that the Canucks would get as good a quality of a player as you might hope with this haul, or without adding significant pieces, but I do hope that in this case your wishes come true. If I'm a team (which is not in cap trouble) and I have concerns over losing one of several guys, how is my position helped by trading one of them to another team for "scraps", just so I can say that, "At least I got something for that guy")? And then I still have the same concerns, but now with one less guy to be concerned over losing in the draft. Your proposal perhaps only really works if there is a team with only one guy they are worried about losing, and in that case, I imagine that the GM from that team will try to do the side trade with Seattle (a pick/prospect/package to not take that guy), rather than lose him for lower picks etc. I am considering more modest possibilities, such as using (some of) these Canuck rentals (or some of the assets gained from moving them) and trading for a d-man who meets the draft requirements. This would (I believe) allow the Canucks to keep Juolevi, Myers and Schmidt (assuming that was something the team wanted to do. regards, G.
-
I've looked at this, often for a response to some trade proposals where it seemed like some posters were suggesting trading all of the current defense other than Hughes... *Trades would (of course) change this list.* For forwards, I agree with Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Motte and Pettersson. the remaining two spots would be from among Gaudette, MacEwen and Virtanen (deal with it, haterz). If the Canucks hope to perhaps improve their chances of keeping Myers, then they would best be served in using as bait a "better" choice from among the remaining forwards, so I would assume Boeser, Gaudette, Horvat, MacEwen, Miller, Motte and Pettersson. (Virtanen as bait - once again, deal with it) If the Canucks don't care about keeping Myers, or they are willing to gamble that Seattle will not select Myers, then I would keep Boeser, Horvat, MacEwen, Miller, Motte, Pettersson and Virtanen. For defensemen, Schmidt, Juolevi and take yer pick from the remaining guys. Myers would be left exposed. That Demko kid for goalie. I believe there is always the possibility that the Canucks could make a trade for a d-man to expand their choices of who could be protected. They acquire some guy with a year left on his contract and meets the requirements for the draft, and then add Myers to the protected list with Schmidt and Juolevi. regards, G.
-
This hit 1 million Youtube views today: regards. G.
-
I've previously put this forward, but it's too nice of a morning to not listen to this again: regards, G.
-
So, I see that the playoffs have now been declared as being "officially" out of reach. Good to know. Saves me watching the remaining games, and gives me more time to devote to reading, or to see what happens in the Brier... unless that too has already been officially declared over. I should check, I suppose. Also, couldn't this decision have been reached sooner, like before the season started, or perhaps a few years ago, so that the rest of us could have made better use of our time? regards, G.
-
A bit more Bill Evans and music (somewhat) appropriate for the time of year: regards, G.
-
[Rumour] Eric Staal open to a trade to a contender
Gollumpus replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
And she has to be "body positive". regards, G.