oldnews
Members-
Posts
53,830 -
Joined
-
Days Won
186
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by oldnews
-
Canucks end of season player media availability
oldnews replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
-
He expires in one year. That's too much imo - with the risk of a one-year rental hanging over it. And he's also 28 yrs old - will expire 29....meaning you have to re-up that. I'm not keen on targetting players at that stage - even in free agency - it's going to cost a whole lot and run into their mid 30s, high decline risk years.... I'd prefer they retain Schmidt, keep the two prospects and if they're going to deal a first, make it for a younger RHD more in line with the team's trajectory.
-
This is what happens when you change course imo / fix what isn't broken. To Faulk and Krug being your top two minute D....no hindsighting here. Parayko still there, as are a few other now older D.... From Pietrangel, Parayko.....Edmundson, Bouwmeester, Bortuzzo, Gunnarrsson... That SCC group - was hard to play against. Wasn't that hard to call at the time - that they were heading in the wrong direction. Bozak would be another decent veteran bottom 6 C cheap placeholding option hitting free agency.
-
doesn't matter what people accept. that's 'theoretical' and changes nothing. it takes the time to draft and develop, regardless. and 'full rebuild' was never really an option. reality dictated otherwise. you'd have to go back further, to pre-Tortorella, and change course, if you wanted a 'full rebuild' when Benning took over.
-
How about we start a #proper build at this point? Ie. Let's not sign any Patrick Marleau deals - like the #proper-rebuild did - just as they were starting to approach a 'window'. No future first round picks spent on a mistake we're about to make! Just don't do it like the Leafs. More important than the expring LEs, Roussels etc of the past - are the deals of the present and near future. Ease off the pressure to prematurely call windows that aren't yet.
-
I agree that is't lose/lose regardless - when it comes to elaborating 'plans' - because as you point out, it'll be spun to protest regardless. I have two primary concerns regarding a 'plan'. The first would be grounded on the ages/trajectories of their young players. There are a few like Miller, Horvat in/approaching their prime - imo Horvat is just coming into his - but otherwise the bulk are in a pre-prime development stage at the NHL level. So - imo cap flexibility in their primes will be more important/vital than it is presently, when the team not only has a lot of youth on ELCs, and RFAs, but still more to integrate. Ideally that continues regardless - drafting and developing succession players from within - but I would not necesssarily make an imperative of buyouts for example, this offseason, for the prioritizing of next season. It may make sense if the right opportunity is there - a timely opportunity - you have to take advantage of every 'window' - so I'm not suggesting an injunction against spending this summer - but I would prefer to be 'conservative' short term unless the e.d. does in fact prove to provide a 'special' set of circumstances/opportunities. Hard to assess that ahead of time, not knowing any of what transpires beforehand. Sign EP, Hughes, have a line on what that will cost in the end - and then retain as much flexibility as possible moving forward / not necessarily making next year's results the shorter term imperative to spend everything necessary to return to 'competitiveness' asap. To be clear, I'm not assuming they won't compete - I think they are going to be 'competitive' regardless, at least when healthy - but I think they should reserve the 'aggressiveness' for real opportunities - not a categorical - only if they are there - as opposed to having to 'fill all the spots' up front. I don't have that expectation - and wish the market would ease off on that - it creates too much pressure, imo, on 20, 21, 22 year olds - and it has created a short term results expectation that is counter-intuitive to the 'rething' most people claim is at the base of their expectations/demands. Last bubble - the team had a better window of opportunity - before Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli expired - in a previous cap landscape 'plan'. Things changed for a number of overlapping reasons - and the timing of that was not positive for the team. While some teams had bad cap expiring - the Canucks had good. Still, a team like Calgary, that had a window of opportunity last summer - did not have it work out so well for them nevertheless.. The Canucks run in the bubble was great - and a good indicator of the young group's potential with a solid supporting cast. Of course we want to resume that asap = but at the same time, cap flexibility that is retained still has the opportunity of executing at the right time. A lot of factors, including health, etc come into play - it's hard to project when the best real windows will appear / if they do / but the 'pressure' to get results' asap - particularly in a write off abnormal season like this - is ironic imo - that is when results 'should have' meant the least. Keeping the limits of their performance, in context, is important - because a team can over-react to an outlier - as the fanbase has imo. 7 years of mean results are not what the 'outlier' call should be relative to - there is no comparison between the state of the teams post Tortorella, and today. The trajectory is far more specific - to this group of youth - to last season and this - and to how they performed in the relative 'seasons' within seasons of each season/year - and why....If the team is assessed as a overall over '7 years', then getting a grasp on early, mid, late, playoff 'seasons' of the more recent team sample (the one where these players were present) is blurred as if last year was the 'outlier' in a continuum of 7 years of 'failure'. All that matters at this point is the present and future - with a view to how they got here. That is hopelessly oversimplified, and a viewpoint that threatens another 'speedup', ironically, if the expectations is 'results finally' at a time when (future) cap is arguably far more important. The team can set itself back (again) with bad timing - or precooked / dictated timing. I haven't particularly cared a lot about the passing cap issues of the team in years past - it's a transition - there have been lots and lots of placeholders in due course - that I felt were relatively inconsequential in the end - because it's been a period of drafting and developing towards a time when the team had a steady stream of youth to integrate. They're just starting to approach a kind of 'critical mass' in that sense imo - so the handling of cap also reaches a transition... For me - the best indicators of 'windows' are obviously in late season, at trade deadlines....when your team heads into a playoff run well-positioned - is a pretty critical time to have cap flexibility. Thankfully you can 'rent' players at pro-rated cap hits - but ideally your flexibility is greater than that - ie the ability to also acquire term - on the right player. This is part of why I'd consider a 'media officer' approach for the team - so they don't feel compelled to "give all these answers" to the 'demands' of media. - we will get aggressive. - we will heed the call to contend asap - the team will allocate the necessary resources to buyouts... etc. These are responses to a media and social media set of 'demands'? From the fanbase...from the 'experts' that follow the team, report on the team, etc? That is a concern for me. I'm not sure how much of it is just speaking to the moment - but I don't want the team pressured into a "plan" demanded by the contradictory, ill-conceived "results now" crowd, whose primary complaints have always been contracts, cap management...etc - arguably before it mattered that much - before the next ones are/were drafted and developed. The irony is that the contradictory pressure of the market - is effectively demanding "speed up" solutions - promises - a "plan" to get aggressive. All of this, imo, can compromise the disposition of the team to the extent that they alter or show their cards (if at all). Forcing "answers" - to show their 'cards' in this sense - does not enhance negotiating from a position of strength - it does the opposite. Expecting / an imperative that the team get 'aggressive' - speed it up - get short term results - etc - are things I would not entertain in the media market. The media is not "owed answers" - they are only 'owed' responses to the questions they actually ask - and even then, they're not 'owed' certain content or specifics of context - just 'answers/responses'. Unfortunately the whole dynamic might cost the team, ironically, as this market continues to divide and conquer itself. The team has an opportunity to finish digesting most of it's (veteran) contracts within a year term of now. They need to 'replace'/retain some of those key 'foundation' players - but I hope there is no felt imperative to compel themselves to do so aggressively, asap. The team that contends in the future - will be built over that entire term - there will be opportunities beyond this offseason - let's not spend them out of pressure or impatience unless real opportunities present themselves. My second concern would be 'expecting' young top 6 or young blueliners - to 'drive' play prematurely - or 'create their own opportunities'. etc. EP - still 75.1% ozone starts this season, for example, and a corsi of 50.7% Hughes 62.6% ozone starts, 50.4% corsi. I think they will increasingly 'win' the 'possession' game as they continue to grow, develop, etc - but at this point, it's still serving them to have as solid opportunities as the team can provide....Winning teams tend to have transitioned to scoring bottom six complementary builds, however, they also tend to have veteran cores, top 6 that handle harder minutes, etc....I'd meter this 'imperative' as well. More secondary scoring can take pressure off the top 6 to produce, while on the other hand giving up more scoring against our bottom 6 - can have the reverse effect - as can having players in the bottom six neither producing, nor shutting anyone down - whereas at least with foundation you are holding a defensive line....I think moving prematurely to less foundation can also result in more 'foundation' having to come from Horvat or Miller types - something I don't find a particularly great gameplan if the point is more balanced scoring....Anyhow this latter point is, again, tied to the realistic trajectory of the team, which I'm not going to try to 'force' into the nearer, shorter term (I'm not sure their prime timelines are as close as some of where the pressure is coming from).
-
I heard his comments - I think you're paraphrasing them liberally - "the only reason" for me doesn't ring accurate - but it played a role/perhaps was the deal-maker in a sense. I still wouldn't take that as an imperative to get spend happy this offseason - I'd rather they meter it as opposed to offsetting more cap into the future. I'm sure none of what they do won't be well thought out, though - so I have no objections at this point. I'd simply make my primary targets this summer cap conservative moves - and would be willing to spend assets to get that done / to restructure the youth balance a little.
-
good points. I realize Timmins is exempt - that would not stop me from pursuing him - and really the point isn't necessarily Timmins specifically - it's the type of primary target I'd be pursuing. The only thing that would alter that course for me would be the type of player we draft with our 1st - ie if the right RHD is there. I'm doubtful - so I'd be prepared to deal that pick for a future Hughes partner if at all possible. Any alternative targets/suggestions entirely welcome (I haven't spent any real time gameplanning that - which it would require). Tampa - of course would like cap relief via young D - but at the same time they are in a contending window - so whether they're prepared to deal guys like Cernak instead - or get bent over by Seattle is an unknown - but no matter how we slice it - they once again will have to make decisions they won't want to. I wouldn't hesitate to re-track another Tampa deal.
-
you're assuming the results this year are due to a conservative offseason I don't think it's that simple - and I'm not going to speak for a "ton of players". I imagine if a person made a case to them - like the one I would propose - they'd assess is as opposed to simply getting pissed off. Would Hughes argue with acquiring a Cal Foote? Who would argue with spending more money next summer as opposed to this? Is any of this worth getting 'pissed off' about categorically - as if there are no strategic questions involved. If this team made categorical decisions based on short terms alone - neither Benning nor Green would still be here. I doubt there's as much furor from the players - as there is noise in the market. I feel for the Edlers, and other veterans who had to ride out this M.A.S.H. season -but I doubt any of them are as short-sighted as the knee-jerk fan and media base. The irony for me - if all the noise results in anything - it'll be a "speedup" that is supposedly one of the most loathed effects of the improper rebuild. The best course forward is not necessarily to spend as much cap as possible up front to hasten next year's results.
-
those are not necessarily equivalents in my view. the guys I'd want through e.d. aggression - are not going to propel us into the playoffs next year. Cal Foote is the type of target I'd want. ":just wait it out one more year" is a paraphrase that is misapplied if to anything other than the contracts themselves. I'm not talking about 'waiting out' a losing season - I'm talking about prioritizing the following season -when it comes to spending cap space. the team's youth are still relatively young cap flexbility will be more important imo in the following years than next year I personally would remain conservative this offseason - where spending cap space is concerned - not with getting aggressive in the e.d. market my e.d. market targets would not require substantial cap space.
-
I hope that translates into acquisitions like Foote, or Timmins - or players still emerging that make great targets....if any assets are being spent. I have the patience for another transition year - after which 'the rest' of the veteran contracts expire. The irony is that the impatience, the drum beating and the "results demand" of the loudest parts of the market - will likely fuel a speed up moreso than anything.
-
I'm not right - I have no idea what LE will do. If I were betting I doubt he'll walk away - that would be good fortune after a cap stall and Luongo recrap. Can't expect any reverse good fortune. Edler, Sutter and Baertschi expiring this summer = enough imo to get the RFAs done and bring back lower cost placeholders (possibly even them, Baer aside). - and then Eriksson, Holtby, Roussel, (Beagle) - the following year. I'd probably not bother with buyouts - rather 'ride outs'. And remain conservative this summer. But I'm not ownership - so it won't go 'my way'.
-
that's an interesting take / partial narrative. I'm not necessarily keen on team buyout - I think I'd prefer to let the one year terms expire and not spill over into the future (also don't see an LTIR Beagle as a realistic 'buyout' - or need to - but no point case by casing it). LE shouldn't need a buyout - he should take the 30 million for his 38 goals and call it a win.