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. Marky is among the most valuable pending UFA's and was fourth in Vezna voting. So the question is do you let him walk for nothing? The way I see it Demko was pretty average during the season but his playoff performance, despite brief, really boosted his value. I would be inclined to re-sign Marky for 4 to 5 years and use Demko to offload Eriksson. Ottawa could definitely use a young quality goalie for their rebuild and has a ton of cap space and draft picks. Meaning we could add picks and take no salary back. Marky's term gives DiPietro, other goalie prospects, plenty of time to develop. One scenario is pure loss and the other a benefit for now (cap space) and the future (added draft picks). I know which of those options I'd take. I'd even be willing to add Virtanen or Stecher to that deal with Ottawa. They have three 1st's, four 2nd's and three 3rd's. They could afford to move a few, particularly with a young player or two coming back.
  2. Which means another team is making offers as well. Also Edmonton has joined the rumor mill and has supposedly been talking to them.
  3. The problem is they don't need Eriksson's cap hit nor are they cleaning house to rebuild. They're not struggling to hit the cap floor. They need less expensive young players, not old dead weight players. The Bruins would make a much better offer than what you're suggesting. Here's the real rub, the Coyotes are rumored to be looking for a 1st round pick in the trade package. They want a picks/prospects package. The B's are rumored to have offered their 2020 2nd, 2021 1st and a decent D prospect. You think they'll take a cap dump without something extra to do it? We don't have a 1st or 2nd to offer from this year. They could take Louie's contract but it will cost more. In the neighborhood of Juolevi with Hoglander or Podkolzin, and next years 2nd.
  4. Re-signing Point isn't a reward. It's a biproduct. You're confusing a "salary dump", which is a player not worth his contract, with trading a player "with value" to clear cap space. One you pay to get rid of, the other is a player any team would like to have, and he could be traded to any team. The notion Miller should have been had at a bargain is ridiculously stupid. Why would any GM in need of a solid two way forward let Benning have him at a bargain? If I need that player I'll start low but make a decent offer to get him. I certainly wouldn't let another GM get him for peanuts. I beg to differ... There are a lot of good players who don't carry the play. They're often the guys good around the net, guys who read their line mates and know where to be. They tend to be producers when playing with good players. Again, no one would have predicted Eriksson's production to fall off a cliff as it did. Seriously, from 30 plus to can't hit 15. Nobody would have predicted that. They said they wanted to compete for a playoff spot while transitioning to a younger team. Transition to a younger team. They said it over, and over, and over ad nauseum. What did you think that meant? They were calling it a domestic engineer while you, and others, wanted to hear housewife. No idea what you're babbling about there. How about a link to an article. Some actual quotes. A babbling rant? I have no idea.
  5. If you're trade expectation is fleecing other GM's in trades every GM is going to disappoint you. Fleecings are rare and only found in hindsight. Did the trade make sense and seem fair at the time is the question. Tampa had to wait up to two years for the first we gave up for Miller and was highly likely to be in the bottom half of the round. People seem to ignore Tampa having to wait for the primary piece in that trade. No GM wants to wait years for their primary return. And the Miller we saw in Tampa any GM would be happy to get with a mid first. Not a homerun but a fully solid double. You get a player capable of 40+ points, can play any forward position, and is absolutely solid on the defensive side you could even consider that a triple with a mid first. Tampa got extra in that deal because they had to wait for the first and the odds were high it would be into the bottom half, never mind middle, of the round. I honestly couldn't figure out why people freaked at the time. I thought it was a good deal and could be a steal if he clicked with either Petey or Bo. Secondly would we have gotten where we did in the playoffs without Sutter, Beagle, Roussel and Myers? All are very good at their given roles. Also having some role models for the younger guys to learn from is a benefit. Eriksson is pure hindsight. Who would have predicted his production would fall off a cliff as it did? I believe he was brought in to help immediately and be a veteran producer to help the young guys after the Sedins retired. Lacking a crystal ball some things just don't work out. I tend to look at why things were done at the time they were done. Was there logic to the move at that time? Hindsight is far easier and there isn't a GM around that doesn't get their share of facepalms in hindsight. Everything Benning has done has made sense to me. Some have panned out, some haven't. One of the factors I consider in the big picture is he came into the worst situation I've ever seen for a new GM. An aging team on the decline with only one player under 27 worth keeping (Tanev), a raft of NTC's, and an empty prospect pool. When you look at how long teams like TO and the Oilers have toiled with younger players and considerably more high picks I'd say Benning has done a very good job going from needing to replace an entire team to being a playoff team rather than wallowing for a decade as they did.
  6. But why would Arizona have any desire to take a cap dump player (Eriksson) in return for a high quality d-man? Never mind a second cap dump in Baer. You pay extra to move cap dumps. Suggesting adding a second cap dump in Baertschi means paying even more Here's the problem: you're offering two average players (Virtanen & Stecher) and a question mark (Juolevi) for a very good player. If I really want to move OEL i might consider that, purely based on Juolevi having good potential, but wouldn't feel great about that deal. But you're adding two cap dumps and want a pretty good goalie from them as well in the deal. Swap out Virtanen with Boeser and I would possibly take Eriksson on but not Baer or include the goalie. That makes the deal a good forward for a good d-man and an average d-man plus good potential for the one $6m cap dump. That I would consider if there wasn't any better offers. But even at that I see it as Vancouver coming out better in the deal. We're moving out over $15m cap and getting back $8. Giving us the cap space to re-sign Tanev, Markstrom and Toffoli. They may want to move OEL because of his salary but that doesn't mean they want to give him away for a bagful of crap.
  7. I don't worry about the cup. I wouldn't mind seeing the Nucks win it but it won't change my life at all. All I truly care about is seeing good hockey.
  8. It doesn't matter what is said though. If it's something they don't like they point their finger at Aquilini. Linden is liked after all.
  9. The great thing about conspiracy theories (such as Aquilini interference) is: no evidence required.
  10. Two Presidents Trophies and a trip to the finals. I'm guessing you're one of those "if you don't win the cup it was a wasted season" people.
  11. What GM has GM experience before becoming a GM? Benning was the Bruins AGM for 8 years before the promotion. I consider that qualifying experience and far from zero. Some may have preferred an experienced GM but if they're available it's typically because they've been fired.
  12. Imo Benning was new to the team and didn't really know our scouts. I believe he would have been more likely going with who they wanting for that first pick than telling them who to pick. Boston, a contender, wasn't picking anywhere near the top ten. After that top ten pick Benning likely had more to go on from the Bruins scouting. But he came over before scouting was finished and they all get together to start compiling their list. If it was partly PR taking Virtanen I'd say it was more likely Linden pushing than Benning. Or as you said - the owner.
  13. I still don't know where the notion comes from that he didn't want Pettersson or Hughes. There's even a video of the Quinn draft where, before Detroit makes their pick, he asks Zedina or Hughes for our pick? The answer is Hughes. Detroit selected Zedina and Benning immediately says "we got our guy". It sounded to me he'd have been happy with either as no other name still on the table was mentioned. As to Petey I've never seen anything other than how high everybody was on him and the amount of time spent scouting him. The only place I've seen the suggestion he didn't want these two is here. After drafting him he even gave Delorme credit for identifying him as a player to watch at a young age. It seems a little convenient that those that don't like Benning say bad picks are his and good picks he fought against. I've seen no evidence to back it up and Benning was rather successful as a scout and head scout. On the contrary, in draft videos he appears to discuss who to pick rather than telling the others who he wants. As for Juolevi he may well have wanted to target a d-man with that high pick as our best in the system was 3rd round Brisebois. But who could have known Juolevi would have injury after injury to hamper development? I still view him as a potential top four. As to Virtanen listen to the commentary from the draft, both before and after the pick....
  14. As long as there's more than one team interested we'd get full value moving Demko. Honestly if you were a GM in need of a Demko would you let another GM have him at a bargain price because Benning "needs" to move him?
  15. Well there are a few other considerations favoring Makar other than ppg. Per 60 minutes Makar also outhit Hughes, had more takeaways, fewer giveaways, and blocked more shots. While averaging slightly lower ice per game. It's not that Hughes wouldn't have been a good choice to win, overall Makar was the better choice. As I said earlier, I expected Makar to win. I don't think the decision had to do with having the bigger name given their stats, but I agree it doesn't fall under the robbery label.
  16. There needs to be a minimum of one defenseman and two forwards exposed to the draft meeting that NHL games played criteria. * All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits). * All Clubs must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the Expansion Draft: i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and b) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and b) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. https://www.nhl.com/goldenknights/news/expansion-draft-full-rules/c-289403076 Juolevi will be playing his third professional season this year. Las Vegas took Tomas Nosek, who had only played 17 NHL games in two season, from Detroit.
  17. Makar scored more goals, a higher ppg average, and was +12 to Quinns -10. I'm not the least surprised Makar won. Production almost always determines the winner.
  18. I believe he qualifies as he'll be a three year pro when the draft occurs.
  19. I've read it many times thanks. Your point?
  20. Wishful thinking? They'd be more likely to take Motte, Virtanen, Gaudette or Stecher if still here. I'd even seriously consider Juolevi over Roussel.
  21. She was born in Vancouver and grew up in White Rock until moving back into Vancouver for high school. I've never seen anything about ever living in Smithers.
  22. :I wouldn't complain about Roussel's production as he only averaged 7:26 per game. Three misconducts didn't help him. The only guys averaging less ice time per game were Ferland and Juolevi. Virtanen should be worried with Motte and Rousel out producing him considering he had PP time they didn't.
  23. “You want to know how to act and behave as a professional, look at this guy.” A great read if anybody is interested. I'd copy and post it but it's just too long a read. But it's worth it. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/manny-malhotra-became-one-nhls-promising-young-coaches/
  24. As punishment for Virtanen failing to meet unspecified summer training “goals,” Green deployed the fifth-year pro in the third and final practice group on Friday, essentially banishing the Canuck from the grown-ups’ table. So while Brock Boeser’s coveted spot alongside star centre Elias Pettersson was filled by journeyman Reid Boucher in Group 1, Virtanen, a 2014 first-round pick who scored 15 goals last season, skated beside Utica Comets Carter Bancks and Wacey Hamilton and other members of the Canucks’ AHL affiliate. The sparse group was filled out by two players on tryouts and entry-level goalie Michael DiPietro. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/virtanen-absent-grown-ups-table-open-canucks-camp/ I'm always preaching patience with prospects. And mistakes don't bother me at all when you can see the drive and desire is there. I preached patience with Kassian and there's similarities there. After the 13/14 season I said it was time to cut bait and move on. He just didn't get it. The effort and consistency just wasn't there. He was waived that next season. What they were asking of Kassian is what they've been asking of Jake. Now I'm not saying Jake has substance abuse issues but he has the same tendencies when it comes to consistency and effort. The red flags are waving. He's not a prospect anymore, he's a 5 year veteran. He's the same age Kassian was when we cut bait on him. The difference is he still has value in a trade. If somebody offered a top half 2nd rounder in this draft for him I'd take it and run. Btw, pulling numbers out of hat rarely works out well. Even strength plus PP time combined Motte averaged 11:45 (0:02 of that PP) per game and Jake 11:15 (1:28 of that on PP). Motte averaged an additional 3:32 per game SH to Jake's goose egg. Again, outshot Jake 29-16 and I'll add outscored Jake 4-2. Solid defense and aggressive checking leads to offensive opportunities. I'd rather have Motte on the third line than Jake based purely on his effort, commitment and drive.
×
×
  • Create New...