Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

MattJVD

Members
  • Posts

    2,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MattJVD

  1. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Maybe raise the maximum salary for ELCs to 1.5 mil (still at 3 years) after 3 years the player can elect to extend the contract at the same salary for one year OR the team can elect to extend the contract for up to 3 years with salary increasing by 500k each year (2.5 mil AAV). Upon expiry of either option, the player is a UFA. Alternatively, say any subsequent contract can not exceed 200% the AAV of the the highest previous contract. (Simplifying things to say ELCs are $1 million) pretty much all high-end RFAs would be locked up at $2 mil, $4 mil, and $8 mil in years 4, 5, and 6 respectively. UFA upon completion of their 6th year on an NHL contract. And finally, ditch the hard cap and implement a progressive spending tax. Like the NBA
  2. I think that was the question. Pretend offersheets are axed, what would you propose to change around the construction of RFA rights and/or ELCs?
  3. Ohh, good question. Longer ELCs with escalating salaries, then straight to UFA? Defined 2nd contract maximums in the CBA? I'm just throwing things at the wall, it's a fun question.
  4. Tough to pick who will lose this one: The worst team in the salary cap era or the Buffalo Sabres?
  5. That's exactly why Vancouver said no. From what I understand Vancouver called and asked about Buchnevich, the Rangers said they'd like Horvat back, and Vancouver said Horvat is not available.
  6. Dump and chase is fine when we have some speedy forcheckers making life hard for the opposition. What we saw far too often the last few years has been 'dump and not chase'. Just handing the puck to the other team's D, then trying to defend again.
  7. I went with Linden. I was thinking of who I'd want to add to the current team and (though prime Lou is an upgrade) we have a great goaltender. Adding a top line winger with Linden's grit and leadership would be incredible.
  8. Kesler would need a few more 70+ point and 40 goal seasons and at least one more trophy (another selke or a cup, maybe even both) to even be a bubble HHOF guy
  9. They're not going to ask him to come in early and step on a scale just to satisfy curiosity. He'll weigh in in training camp just like everyone else
  10. Those are his draft combine numbers. It won't be updated until after the big club's training camp.
  11. I don't think the sponsorship agreement will change that. The NCAA considered the CHL pro because players with pro-contracts (guys who have signed theit ELCs) can play in the CHL and receive their signing bonuses.
  12. So when performance bonus eligible players are recalled from thw AHL, is it true that their whole performance bonuses are included in their cap hit? They aren't in a separate bonus pool that can be deferred until next year? That might make for an interesting opportunity. Depending on Petey and Hughes' cap hits; could Rathbone and Hoglander be 'papered' down on opening day and recalled (now with their full bonuses being applied) after Ferland is on LTIR? So we can try to get as close to the full 3.5 mil of cap relief as possible?
  13. It depends on which players end up getting waived, but it's likely in the 16-16.5 million range. Plenty of money for both Petey and Hughes. That's with a 23 man roster.
  14. It sounds like his number (14) suits him
  15. I completely forgot Makar's deal was for 6 years, thought it was $9 mil x 8.
  16. I wonder if it will look like OEL's deal? $8.25x 8 years (I'm assuming the comparable Johnston referenced is Makar)
  17. I was on Basic Training during the 2010 Olympics. The instructors gave us the afternoon off to watch the gold medal game; so not only was the hockey great, the reprieve from training was very welcome. I'm biased towards to 2010 team for that.
  18. Yeah, I wonder how much of this happens? Sounds reasonable to me. GM says these are the AAVs and terms I am willing to do, you (agent) can make the structure whatever you want within those AAVs and terms. (Signing bonuses, front load, back load, whatever).
  19. I'm not sure what you're trying to dispute with this? The part where is says 'they only included the first test to attempt to minimize errors from "low viral load"'? I'm assuming that's what you're going with (given the context of our conversation). What is says is some people tested positive, then tested positive again some time later and they only counted that as one case. It still means they had a high enough viral load to test positive which is the whole "taking up residence and reproducing" thing I was talking about. They're still included in the number of positive cases in the trail: 170 positive cases, 162 unvaccinated, 8 vaccinated.
  20. I did, you ignored me. The efficacy %s given by the clinical trails were: the % reduction in positive tests by nasal swab in the vaccinated sample of the population vs the non vaccinated. When a few viral cells land on you from someone's sneeze, that is not the 'viral load' we're talking about. We're talking about when those cells take up residence in your airway and reproduce. In vaccinated people the body kills those cells before they reproduce most of the time. In the times the body doesn't: then viral loads are similar to the unvaccinated who are also infected.
  21. Well if only 1 unvaccinated person was let in, it wouldn't matter. But if the stadium is 17% filled with the unvaccinated (the rate of the general population*). That's a super-spreader event that could: A) Overwhelme Vancouver hospitals, denying other patients treatment and raising mortality from all other causes; and B. It provides Covid with a large enough population to reproduce in that it may mutate into new varients which vaccines are less effective against. 95% less likely to test positive by nasal swab in clinical trails. Compared to an unvaccinated sample with comparable behavoir. *of those eligable to receive a vaccine (12+)
×
×
  • Create New...