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

oldnews

Members
  • Posts

    53,830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by oldnews

  1. that's a meaningless statement to me - oneliner - that doesn't really scratch the surface of the point - but it's an off topic discussion I don't really care to have here
  2. I agree that the market for a Hughes partner didn't quite pan out as hoped - none of the guys I wanted went anywhere, they all stayed with their teams. I also think that the Hughes Hamonic pairing is likely to look better by simple virtue of how piecework and depleted the roster was for large stretches last season - playing with some more complete forward units will help them as well.
  3. I'm nowhere near as keen on Parayko as most folks here. It's one thing to look good when you're surrounded by the best blueline in the NHL - which is what StLouis had when they won that cup. Start shipping pieces out - and I'm not sure Parayko is everything people here were expecting him to be.
  4. I should add - that my take on this is dependent upon him being Hughes partner. It's possible that either OEL or Poolman wind up playing with Hughes - if that turns out to be the case, then I'd probably wind up more in favour of this deal. Where Hughes is concerned I was hoping for a bit more mobility - but in fairness to Hamonic, I think he had an awful season last year, so I'm open to giving him another shot - I just thought that his spot was the top priority to upgrade upon.
  5. I don't know- but I would have preferred to keep that option open. If Hamonic regains form I suppose that's a tradeable contract.
  6. then your whole "they got McCann to leverage a #proper return on Kerfoot" was plain dumb. really weak effort to fluff a stupid move based on an absurd lack of logic. The only sense that the McCann deal made was that they'd have one or the other post expansion - now they're dealing Kerfoot and wadr - you have nothing but pointless noise to offer.
  7. Hopefully he can be considerably better than he was last year - acknowledging that there are a ton of players whose last season isn't necessarily fair to judge. Was really hoping this was the one spot we could upgrade upon. Serviceable enough - but I'd prefer a one year deal under the circumstances.
  8. everything you say makes me wonder.....I won't say what it makes me wonder.....
  9. I always love when people pretend to speak for tens of thousands of people carry on.
  10. 2 pts in 8 playoff games - played over 21 minutes in the postseason.
  11. a 'bottom pairing' D who played with Morrisey and was 4th in ice time among Wpg's D.
  12. I like Poolman - good size, mobile, relatively physical, can kill penalties - more upside that last year would indicate imo - reasonable contract for a guy that can play 18 minutes/game. I was in favour of avoiding the big fish - so I can't argue with a (couple) mid range signings - essentially what I thought they should do.
  13. Excellent deal - lower than I thought - we still need at least one 'foundational' center lol
  14. yes - Hallander and a 7th - my braincramp/mistake. (but that greater value only further underlines my point) spend Hallander (a 2nd) and a 7th on McCann - in order to 'leverage a proper return' on Kerfoot? Again - what do you perceive a #proper-return on Kerfoot to be? If that doesn't help - let me put it this way.... Seattle valued McCann more highly than Kerfoot - clearly. So what return are you expecting on Kerfoot - that would exceed the cost of acquiring McCann?
  15. He spent a 3rd on McCann in order to 'leverage a proper return for Kerfoot'? What do you imagine that #proper-return to be? Hope this question helps.
  16. retain cap and/or add a pick and maybe we'd be interested.
  17. I don't doubt that whatsoever - you don't know what you're talking about - how could you know what I am?
  18. a lot of people appear confused about this move, including this post. of course Tampa gained cap space. they gained 5 million of cap space - for three years - in other words they gained 15 million of cap space. for a 2nd round pick the Seabrook LTIR cap will only hinder them from making offseason moves that would put them more than 10% over the cap. his deal has negative value - but nowhere neare the negative value of Johnson - who's actual cap Chicago will have to eat for three years, every day of the regular season. horrible deal for Chicago imo. a 15 million cap dump should have cost considerably more. Arizona - who probably also undersold their leverage in the cap dumps they took - got a 2nd and Kolyachonok for eating one serviceable year of Stralman at 5.4....a much better deal imo. Arizona also got a 2nd and 7th for two year x 4.5 of Gostisbehere.... worst of all - Chicago does Tampa a solid (for soft value....)
  19. he has no 'value' = it's negative value -that reduced the cost of moving the even greater / considerably negative value of Johnson's contract.
  20. you still got that mountebank living rent free in your head? might want to flush that golden toilet. and that's a cool 'quote' you posted. same source?
×
×
  • Create New...