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

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    11,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. There's currently 12 points between us and being out of the top ten picks. I doubt we fall out of the top 10 picks unless teams behind us get lucky in the lottery to move up. If we play .500 and finish with 75 pts Calgary needs to lose 15 of their remaing 19 games to drop below us or Washington lose 14 of their remaining 18. So even playing a little over .500 leaves it unlikely to drop out of the top 10 picks. I'd like to be in the top ten, but I also really like seeing the team win. I guess I fall into the "let the chips fall where they may" category. The good news is the odds are against the worst team actually getting the 1st overall. Yet the worst team actually did get 1st overall in the last two drafts. What are the odds the odds will be beaten three years in a row? Possible of course, but I see it as good sign for the teams behind the worst team this year.
  2. Juolevi drafted 5th overall, Bieksa drafted 5th round Juolevi at 19 played SM-Liigga, Bieksa 22 played college Juolevi at 21 played in the NHL, Bieksa at 24 played his first season When Juolevi became waiver elligible would you have kept him over a 26 yr old Bieksa because of the above? I get that Hogs is "liked" but that bold part of your post is utterly meaningless. What matters is what they are in the here and now. Hoglander is going to be waiver elligible. That's important. If he not ready to secure a roster spot then it's really important. I've never once said Hogs doesn't have value. If he didn't have any value I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about waivers because he'd likely clear and wouldn't care much if he didn't. It would be nice to hang on to your prospects until there's some real certainly but that's not the reality. Unfortunately prospects come with an expiry date where you can lose them for nothing. Forward is a position we have some depth at, even among prospects. Competition is getting tougher to secure a spot. Even if Boeser and/or Garland are moved it doesn't guarantee Hogs a spot next fall. Yes, they can wait untill camp/preseason to make the call on Hogs, particularly if a roster player is moved. I have no problem with that at all. But, if a deal comes up I have no issue whatsoever about moving him. There's more coming in pipeline. Are you into gifting players a spot despite clearly better options? I'm not. If you're not, are you willing to roll the dice Hogs would clear waivers? Imo, anybody that's saying he would clear is also saying he's not that good nor valuable enough for another team to take him for free. I don't believe he'd clear because I believe he does have value. I also believe he will become a decent middle 6 NHL winger. He's the type of prospect I would really hate to lose for nothing. So am I willing to include him in a trade that unloads a bad contact? Absolutely. Am I willing to include him in a trade that improves the team? Absolutely. In the end prospects, like picks and roster players, are moveable assets. Sorry, but liked or not Hogs doesn't fall into the untouchable category for me.
  3. What will this team be in the next 7, 8, or even 9 years? You will never be a contender if you don't build around your top talent. Hronek can be a core player here for the ext 8 years. If he was 28, 29, or 30 I'd agree. But he's 25. Drance is an idiot. Can we agree a top 4 RHD is a difficult position to fill? The last one we drafted was Bieksa in the 5th round in 2001. Again, Hronek is 25. FYI, Pettersson is 24. What's the point of keeping Pettersson if Hronek isn't a good addition at 25? Does adding a quality 25 yr old RHD improve the team for the forseeable future? Does it build on our current young talent? Building is building. You just can't sit around hoping on magic beans. Every piece added in Pettersson's age group moves us closer. Here's the deal... Out - Horvat C (28) plus a 2nd rounder In- Beauvillier LW (25), Raty C (20), Hronek RHD (25) and a 4th rounder. I'm pretty freakin' happy with that. The biggest complaint moving Bo, other than "but we like him", was we didn't get a good RHD in return. Well with a flip we did. Now if they move any of Boeser, Garland, or Myers, there's no preasure at all in getting a top 4 RHD in return. They're no longer limited to teams with a RHD they are targetting and can move any or all of those players for what they perceive to be the best return from any team. Btw, what I've seen the most is "right player, wrong time". The reasoning being we are a bottom 7 team and out of the playoffs, so why are we adding? That's idiotic. Hronek isn't a rental that disappears at the end of the season. When you're building and opportunity knocks - you answer. If you don't the opportunity can be lost. If we say "not the right time, maybe in June". Will Yzerman simply find a different dance partner? Does he change his mind once he knows exactly what that Isles first is? Or even change his mind simply because he's had time to really consider it. Or possibly make a completely different deal that in turn takes Hronek of the market again. This is a player that can be part of the core for the next 7-8 years. The "when" doesn't matter at all. If the deal is acceptable you grab those opportunities when they presents themself. You snooze you lose.
  4. When Petey is 33 like Stamkos and Kilhorn we can take a count of how many drafted players are on the roster. Take a look at the span of draft years for key the players. You absolutely need high end talent to be a contender. But even high end talent doesn't become a contender without building a team around them. The quicker you do that the bigger the window to contend. The bigger the window the greater the chance of actually winning a cup. Fail to build around your high end talent and you don't contend at all and you have to start over. From 2009 to 2016 the Oilers drafted 10th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 7th, 3rd, 1st, and 4th overall. They had 65 draft picks in that span. Despite the high picks, and getting the player of the deacade in 2015, seven years later (13 from the first top 10 pick) they are sitting in a wild card spot. In reality can you actually depend entirely on magic beans to find the golden goose? Funny thing about Yzerman, he said when he trades a player he actually prefers to get a player back because he knows what he's getting. Detroit seems to be rebuilding their rebuild. But he also said some of the acquired picks might be moved. It wasn't an overpayment at all for Hronek. It was very comparable to what other good top 4 RHD have been traded for.
  5. Show me a team that won the cup in the last 30 years with a team entirely drafted by them. I could care less where the players come from. I just want to see a good team on the ice.
  6. And why on earth would be look to add players that help get us there?
  7. Particularly players playing for their next contract or those playing to win a regular roster spot. Were I either of those I'd be utterly pissed at teammates not making any effort.
  8. The maximum you can retain is 50% of the remaining contract. With $1m remaining you can retain $500K. Otherwise a team could trade a player mid season and say we're retaining the 50% his salary remaining for the season because it's under 50% of the total and the receiving teams 50% is what we already paid him. NHL answer: Um, that means you're paying 100% of his salary. You can't do that. Myers has a $5m bonus to be paid July 1st. His salary for the season is $1m. After paying his bonus the Canucks can retain 50% of his salary. But that also means retaining 50% of his cap hit. If the point of moving him is to gain that $6m cap space why would they retain 50% over $500k?
  9. I agree. He was a pleasant surprise his rookie season. But even then I said he's really going to need to improve the defensive side of his game. Miidling players need to provide more than just middling production. But the fact is he's at that make it or face waivers this year. The truth is I hoped the Boeser situation would be sorted by the deadline to bring Hogs up for the rest of the season. I honestly don't think he'd clear waivers. So he's at the make it or move him point this year.
  10. I never said Hogs is negative value or of no real value. Nor did I mention a 7th. I said he's currently not worth the 2nd we used to draft him if we moved him. The very reason I don't believe he'll clear waivers is because he is still young and has potential. Meaning he still has "some" value. My preference is moving negative value contracts. But moving negative value contracts require some positive incentive to go with them. This was the season Hoglander needed to secure a spot. Going into this season Hogs only had around 26 NHL games left before becoming waiver elligible. But next season he is waiver elligible regardless of games played. I have no problem with moving a waiver elligible player, that's likely to claimed off waivers, regardless of his name. If he hasn't earned his roster spot, or is unlikely to because of depth in front of him, moving him is better than losing him for nothing. I had no problem with moving Grabner and I have no problem with moving any other waiver elligible player in that position. I have no problem playing wait and see with Hogs for next preseason. But I also have no problem moving him if it unloads Myers contract or improves the team in some other trade. When prospects hit that point of gift a roster spot when not the best option, lose him to waivers, or move him for something else - my choice will always be move him. And I'd do it without any regrets.
  11. He had no problem buying out Ballard, Booth, Higgins, Virtanen, Spooner, or Holtby. He had no problem with Lou's cap circumvention contract putting actual payroll above the cap limit. Nor has he taken issue with burying NHL contracts in the AHL. He spent money upgrading their dressing room and workout room. Spent on that chamber that supposedly sped up injury recovery time, a sleep doctor, a sports psycologist, and a nutritionist. He's never shown anything at all to indicate he's cheap. It seems to me the guy happily pays for anything that even offers even a remote chance to improve the team.
  12. Players also get claimed off waivers all the time. Do you think Hogs is bad enough to clear? At 22 he's a decent enough prospect that a rebuilding team would claim him. As I said, late bloomers rarely bloom with the team that drafted them because of waiver elligibilty. There's always rebuilding teams willing to roll the dice on a young boarderline player they can grab for free. Even waiver elligible I think he has trade value with a rebuilding team. I'm far more often surprised at players that get claimed than players that clear. I suspect it would take far more than Hogs to get OEL moved.
  13. You seem to think Hoglander has some real value. I doubt you could get the 2nd we spent on him right now. He's had a chance (141 NHL games) and got sent down to the AHL. He's a player that has taken too long to get to where he needs to be. Garland is a pretty good NHL player. I don't understand how you would prefer to move positive value over negative value with a maybe, just maybe, one day player to create cap space. You get cap space but it doesn't improve the team when keeping that negative value player. Plus we may just lose Hogs to waivers anyway.
  14. Very different circumstances. I'm talking about adding a young guy that will be waiver elligible, and unlikely to make our team, to get a draft pick back instead. Shed the cap hit, a waiver elligible player, and get a pick back. Does that seem remotely like that Arizona deal?
  15. Nowhere did I suggest taking a big contract back in moving Myers. But if a rebuilding team is willing to take Myers plus a waiver elligible young player for wid draft pick I'll happily take it to shed his 6m cap hit. The one year cap hit doesn't matter much to a rebuilding team and they get a pretty decent veteran only costing them 1m actual money. Adding a waiver elligible young guy unlikely to make our team to make it happen is 100% worth it.
  16. You won't get much for him if he looks like he won't make the team in preseason. A team will make a mediocre offer (maybe an ok offer) because they don't have first shot at him on waivers knowing your choice is take it or lose him for nothing. The problem with Hogs is he hasn't been productive enough for top six and not physical or defensive enough for bottom six. The one thing we have is some depth at forward. Kuzmenko, Boeser, Beauvillier, Mikheyev, Garland, Podkolzin. We're not a Presidents trophy team but imo we already have six wingers better than Hogs. Unless he's taken a real leap in the defensive side of his game, or there's other forward movement in the offseason, I doubt he makes the team next fall. Podz has another 53 NHL games (or the 24/25 season) before he becomes waiver elligible. I'd rather move Myers as early as possible in the summer just in case other deals happen along. Personally I'd prefer Rathbone as an add in to move Myers if it's needed. But if a team wants Hoglander instead I'm fine with that.
  17. The problem is Hogs is waiver eligible next season (as is Rathbone). Is Hogs good enough to make the team as a regular? Questionable. Bad enough to clear waivers? Unlikely. Typically if management isn't confident a player becoming waiver elligible will make the team they move them rather than risk losing them for nothing. That's why we moved Grabner and Florida lost him for nothing. It's why Chicago moved Forsling and Carolina lost him for nothing. Not viewed good enough to make the NHL fulltime, but too good to clear waivers. Late bloomers are not unusual, but blooming for the team that drafted them is because of waiver elligibility.
  18. I'd happily give up Hoglander or Rathbone to move Myers. I don't really see either being longterm Canucks.
  19. Blah, blah, blah.... 11-2 against mediocre teams. They didn't bow those teams out game after game, they just played well game after game. You won't change my mind about the reality of that run.
  20. All the heavy lifting was done by other teams in the first round. I said more than once, they played well. Dominant is something of an exaggeration. But if it makes you feel better....
  21. Against teams that finished lower than them. That's my point, they played well, but they didn't need to upset any superior teams. They didn't face a team higher in the standings than them until the final. The Kings upsetting the Oilers was an amazing accomplishment. Canucks beat teams they were perfectly capable of beating just playing well. Three out of 4 of their wins against LA were by 1 goal. Hardly dominant. Two of their 4 wins against Chicago were by one goal and only the final game was by more than two. They had two wins by more than 2 goals on the entire run and only one loss by more than two goals leading up to the final. They played well game in and game out. I loved that cup run, but it wasn't the against all odds Cinderella run many make it out to be.
  22. In '82 we were the 4th best team in the west and 2nd in the Smythe behind Edmonton. They didn't exactly squeak in. But they also didn't need to play over their head and upset any team to make it to the finals. The top 3 teams in the west were all upset by other teams in the first round. After that first round winning the west was completely up for grabs. That's not to say the team didn't play well because they did. But there was no "I can't believe they beat that team" involved in the run. People at the time called it a Cinderella run. I said, sure except instead of making Cinderella prettier the fairy godmother simply took out the evil stepmother and ugly stepsisters for her. La (63 pts) beat Edm (111 pts) 3-2 Chi (72 pts) beat Minny (94 pts) 3-1 STL (72 pts) beat Wpg (80 pts) 3-1 Van (77 pts) beat Cal (75 pts) 3-0, LA (63 pts) 4-1, and Chi (72 pts) 4-1 The only real surprise to me in that playoff run was sweeping Calgary. It was absolutely a fun run to watch. But they only needed to play well to get to the finals. I fully expected to get swept in the final. My great hope for the final was get 1 win and not get blown out. They got to OT in game one and wasn't blown out in any games. So they played well.
×
×
  • Create New...