iinatcc
-
Posts
6,261 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by iinatcc
-
-
4 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Hronek and Doobison aren’t similar at all. Doobison plays sheltered minutes behind Pulock and Mayfield. Hronek was Detroit’s top D man. Take Doobison out of the Islanders’ D and they’re still fine because he’s not so important. The Wings literally fell off a cliff without Hronek.
Could the same be said about Hronek? I mean technically that's how Yzerman felt otherwise he wouldn't have let him go. And if there is one GM to never doubt their overall judgment as the GM it's Yzerman.
-
4 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:
I'd love to see some anti-gambling ads broadcast during the games. Stuff similar to what they put on cigarette boxes, or what MADD is doing with their commercials about driving drunk and/or high - maybe show some poor schlub down on their luck and homeless after pissing away their home and their savings on the online gambling sites, or a bunch of loan shark henchmen beating one of their casino "clients" to a pulp for trying to stiff them on the interest due. Maybe even a young professional defenestrating themself to avoid having to face the losses they incurred (and money they now owe) from gambling. Yeah!
Or they can show the evil neon claws of Gamblor
-
1
-
-
So based on the guys from the NHL their playoff predictions are
3 of the say they will just miss the playoffs
1 (Dan Rosen) predicts they will make the playoffs.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, canuckleheads fan said:
I'm sad to say, but if the Canucks miss the playoffs, they might as well tear it all down, I doubt Petey signs here, and instead pulls a Tkachuk, forcing a trade to Seattle, Vegas, or one of the Florida teams (tax reasons). I'm already seeing sports commentators in Vegas drooling at the thought of grabbing him for picks, as they can make the cap space to fit him in as their 2C. Petey isn't signing now because he wants to see progress, and unfortunately in our current cap hell there is no room for that except around the edges. Tear it down, and build a great young core through the draft, that's the only way a high tax locale team can win a cup, do what Colorado did.
That's one way to look at it.
Though Drance said recently that it's better to show actual improvements in the team but miss the playoffs and make the playoffs due to unsustainable reasons (i.e. if Petey has a crazy shooting percentage or Demko plays out of his mind) but the underlying problems remain.
Which makes sense. The latter will mean you make the playoffs this season but miss the subsequent years and the former has longer term benefits.
Of course even if the former happen and Petey does decide to leave Vancouver. Then all bets are off I guess
-
10 hours ago, Mrwipeout said:
all teams regroup and renew and there are so many factors involved in it. these assessments are based on last year...i think we are dependant on how our youngsters develop...we need more high quality depth while the top line continues to produce as last year. and at the same time its crucial that hogs, podz, brock can take another step in their development = we are playoff bound...
Bolded part is true but then that also means we can't use the late surge the team had with Tocchet either. I know a lot of people here do saying that Tocchet established a good system for the team to be successful when he took over. But that was last season.
I really don't have much faith in Brock Boeser anymore, at least with the Canucks. I get he's had family issues that might have distracted him for a year but sadly if this really affected his game, it's part of reality now. I still think he will be a good 3rd man in a Top 6 line but we probably shouldn't expect him to the game breaker we were hoping him to become during his rookier year.
-
Sure ... The Lady Byng
-
Working on his cardio and conditioning
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, dougieL said:
Well Benning literally said it, so either he's lying or it's true.
So at least we agree there is a nonzero level of blame that goes to the Sedin's. Now, if you ask why someone with Benning's experience as an executive would take advice from people with no front office hockey experience, I'd ask why those people with no front office hockey experience would have the audacity to weigh in so heavily - to the point where they were able to successfully convince Benning to add the second round pick in order to complete the trade.
I fully acknowledge that the final call falls on Benning, and of course he shares the majority of the blame, but come on, don't try to pretend that the Sedin's were so innocent in all of this. Again, they pushed so hard for OEL to the point where they were advising on pieces in the deal to include. That goes pretty far beyond just endorsing OEL as a peer.
I wouldn't say blame I say more like had a hand in the transaction.
Even if you are right, if Benning is willing to get pushed to making a move because of the Sedins. Well I don't know what to say.
But then again who knows really how many people pushed for OEL, the only reason why we know about this is that the Sedins are more visible to the public than, let's say, John Weisbrod.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dougieL said:
And yes, fully agree on keeping Eriksson for one more year. The shortsightedness of that trade was stunning.
Yep Steve Dangle said Canucks traded Loui Eriksson for 6 years of more expensive defensive Loui Eriksson
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, dougieL said:
You can say what you want, but Benning himself stated that the Sedin's were so high on OEL that they were the ones who convinced him to add in the second round pick that Arizona asked for. I mean, to convince Benning to add the second - at that point, they were no longer simply " endorsing OEL as a peer they respect" - they were actively part of the front office people orchestrating the deal.
That is my key point why would someone with almost 30 of hockey executive experience at the time (8 as a general manager) make such key decisions based on the opinions people with no front office hockey experience?
This is 99.9% all on Benning and 00.1% on the Sedins.
This is Homer Simpson level judgment on the part of Benning if what you said is true.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, dougieL said:
Well Linden refused to rebuild out of respect for the Sedin's (https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1173594), which led to us signing Eriksson to play with them, which led us to dumping Eriksson as part of a trade that forced us to take on OEL, the latter of whom was recommended by none other than the Sedin's.
Eriksson had a year left in his contract. Most of us would have not problem having him hang around for another season.
As for the Sedins' Involvement in the OEL, we mentioned this so many times now, these two were staring their first year in the front office (meaning no experience). I could see them endorsing OEL as a peer they respect but it's a GM's job to get a wide range of opinions within the organization. So Benning would have been really dumb if his decision to trade for OEL relied soley on the Sedins.
I said this before I will say it again. If I was the CEO and decided to make my decision solely on the opinion of an intern and it falls flat on my face, all the blame should go to me and I deserve to get fired.
-
I remember not too long ago when superstars like Ovi, Crosby, Malkin, Kane, and Toews were willing to sign max deals with their original clubs.
This can't just be a coincidence that the moment this era's superstars are drafted by mostly Canadian teams, now players won't commit to their clubs. Is it?
-
2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
So in 5 years, Matthews will be making $16 million while JT Miller will still be making $8 million.
Jack Hughes will also still be making only $8 million in 5 years. I’d put money that Jack Hughes wins the cup before Auston Matthews…
That is the scary thing. I would rather have Matthews for 8 years now and negotiate an extension for 4 and not the other way around.
Its 101% certain at age 30 Matthews is going to demand a full 8 year contract from The Leafs (or whatever team he decides to go to)
Stutzle and Jack Hughes contracts are such good deals it almost make me sad that Petterson is going to likely ask 50% more
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, canuckwings said:
Yes exactly so he's committed to cash, not the leafs.
All the toronto media immediately rave about what a great deal this is. It might be a fair deal by the numbers, but the 4 yr term can't be possibly be a good thing for leafs. I guess they're just happy that he resigned and worry later.
I guess the argument is that when the extension talks after Matthew's ELC expired was happening. Matthews wanted like $12 to $13 Million to sign max term. So he settled for a 5 year deal for less money. So if you take into account his current 5 year contract and his 4 year extension that makes up 9 years averaging 12.35 Million.
So on that level I can understand.
The problem is it is a bit unsettling when your franchise player isn't willing to commit to max term so he can maximize his earnings in a hard cap league. If I was a Leafs fan I wouldn't make me question his loyalty (I mean in the end it's a business and Matthews has every right to maximize his wealth) but it would give me pause if this is what is best for the team. Which brings me to another point ...
The expectation was for the core 4's contract (including Matthews) was supposed to be good value by the time 2020 / 2021 hit due the Salary Cap expected to go up with the new TV deals. Of course the pandemic hit and resulted in a flat cap and it turned their expected value contracts to one that had left the team with little or no cap flexibility to build the team around the core 4. If I was a Leafs fan I would think, ok we had to suffer with a flat cap handicapping our team but now with the cap going up we can finally build the team around the core 4. Of course this proves a bit problematic when your franchise player isn't willing to commit on a max term and would rather sign 3 or 4 year deals so he can take more of what cap space the team has.
So a combination of having to go through a flat cap and now you can't take full advantage once the cap is finally going up. It would be a bit frustrating
-
Dangle seems to like the deal
-
Just now, Iron Fist said:
tavares contract expires after next season. 3 years before matthews is ugh
Wait it's already been 6 years?
I thought the Leafs would have accomplished more by then
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
Also after this can we cross out Brad Treliving as a potential GM of the year candidate ?
-
5
-
2 minutes ago, RWJC said:
EP going to come in around 11.5 - 12 per now, imho. This AM contract raises the bar yet again. Teams are paying to retain their franchise players. I don’t think Aqua will be concerned but our internal cap structure might soon become difficult. Cue the “JTM contract will handcuff us” crowd
If it's the Max term heck I would do 12.5. But at 11.5 to 12 for the same 4 year term ...
Canucks need to get some value for their superstar players the same way Florida, New Jersey, and Ottawa all got value from theirs.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
This screams retirement deal in the future. He is setting himself for a 7-8 year deal at age 31 that will be retirement risk proof to the signing team.
I guess just not the cap going up but Tavares contract expires around that time. Meaning if Leafs want to extend Matthews, his camp will ask for something like 8 years for 18 million
-
1 minute ago, Devron said:
You’re gonna let Petey walk. Trade him maybe but walk and I won’t watch another Canucks game
Oops ... when I meant walk ... trade him for something
-
3
-
-
26 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Only 4 years and a HUGE AAV wow!!!
Making more than McJesus is insane
If Pettersson ask for this deal, we need to let Petey walk (edit I mean trade)
Horrible deal for the Leafs. Matthews gave the Leafs no chance to either take advantage of the expected rising cap with a long term deal nor a team friendly bridge deal.
-
2
-
-
I went to an Exhibit called Dark Matter in Berlin
Pretty cool stuff
-
2
-
-
-
On 8/10/2023 at 8:27 AM, Phil_314 said:
Good to not see any Barbie reviews in here
Oppenheimer - watched this without knowing the plot earlier, and yet I was captivated by the mix of storytelling, visuals/ SFX and the integration of different plot lines to create a compelling narrative for an enigmatic and divisive figure. Readily a 9/10, maybe even a 10 (enjoyed it more than MI7, which was pretty strong of a summer blockbuster).Eh I don't know what you mean about Barbie. It was a great movie
Currently my Barbenheimer count in the cinemas are ...
Barbie - 4 times
Oppenheimer - 5 times
Who here is actually happy with the Hronek trade?
in Canucks Talk
Posted
I mean the record speaks for itself. How he built the team in Tampa getting elite players outside the 1st round and signing them to good contracts and winning almost all his trades it's almost masterclass.