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

Provost

Members
  • Posts

    11,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Provost

  1. This is equivalent to the idea of us exposing Myers. There will be a lot of expensive players available to Seattle. I doubt Seattle takes on anyone’s cap problems for free. Having said that, there isn’t much to suggest Voracek is past his best before date. Pretty consistent points producing and largely at even strength.
  2. Bertuzzi isn’t worth our 9th pick even remotely. I am not even sure he is worth a late 1st. Take a breath and see what players shake out from the buyout period and RFA qualifying. There will be good young players who just have big qualifying offers or scary arbitration cases that will suddenly become UFAs. We should be able to find a middle six winger upgrade with no assets going out in trade. Save our trade assets for a top 4D, an elite 3C, or to clear cap room so we can make some moves.
  3. I look forward to the day (soon) that this is in the alumni section. I am assuming most buyouts around the league won’t happen until after expansion and the wheeling and dealing that happens around the amateur draft.
  4. Maybe he wants his kid to be Russian and not Canadian? Maybe it really had to be financially worth it to take his wife away from all her supports to raise a newborn while he is away for days at a time playing hockey? https://www.instagram.com/p/CRE6c9Srq78/?utm_medium=copy_link
  5. If a player like this falls in our lap for cheap sure… not sure it is worth chasing to be honest. There will be excellent players available for Schmidt type cap dumps that won’t cost much in assets. You could probably get a guy like Killorn or Gourde for basically free as a cap dump… or even get a sweetener like Foote to take on Tyler Johnson who would be a massive upgrade as a 3C even if he is overpaid and not an ideal fit as a smaller guy. Or if a team is chasing Tarasenko and needs some cap room, we can take a player back who would be an upgrade for us.
  6. “Some people earned some of their money” is not a rational counterpoint to my comment. Wealth isn’t what you earned and spent. The bulk of boomer wealth has been due to real estate inflation. When you took out a $50,000 mortgage and now your house is worth $800,000… it is a stretch to say you earned that, certainly not when making the argument that millennials didn’t earn anything. Add in the fact that the same boomer population started their working careers with national debts of just in the hundreds of dollars per person, but are finishing their working careers with tens of thousands per person in national debt… and those same people basically lived off government credit cards where they charged government services that they didn’t want to pay taxes for.
  7. Except that by stating they are lying, clickbaiting, full of crap, etc you are claiming to know more than they do… otherwise you are just basing those opinions on your imagination and should preface all your comments as such… like “Coming from a place of pure ignorance of the subject, it is my opinion that the story about Ian Clark being unlikely to re-sign with the Canucks is not true… but again I have no evidence, experience, or insider knowledge to back up that claim.” … but instead it is… ”Dhaliwal is a lying idiot who is just making up clickbait stories about Ian Clark not re-signing… he is a trash media member.” All of us know effectively zero about the inner workings of the league… so what possible logical thinking could lead you to believe that you would have any legitimate insight to make judgments on the relative merits of what people who actually do have more knowledge of the subject? All of the local/national media people rub shoulders daily during the season with players, agents, and members of various organizations. None of us have a fraction of that access.
  8. Not at all. I am saying... and I know this is a huge ask for a lot of folks on this forum... that folks need to at least pretend to be grown ups and understand how to contextualize information they hear. Jumping up and down bashing the media because you can't understand how to be a critical consumer of information is childish. If they report they heard that X player was in trade discussion, a grown up would take that in, and understand that it may have been a short discussion and wasn't a guarantee that it was happening. A childish response is folks jumping up and down beating their chest and jumping up and down shouting that all the media is trash because the trade didn't happen so therefore the media was lying. We see the latter all too often on this board. I see a bunch of folks recently who trashed Dhaliwal because he said that he had heard that Ian Clark was likely not going to re-sign... and Clark ended up re-signing, so clearly Dhaliwal was just lying and making clickbait posts. Of course those same people didn't bother listening to the Clark interview after where he basically said that things changed at the last minute. The exact quote from Clark was: Clark said that he and his family "were prepared to move on," “I had been through this before in Columbus and we made the decision to move on. But, again, the organization pushed hard at the end here and we’re happy, we’re excited, and ready to get to work on bringing a Cup to Vancouver.”
  9. The folks bashing the media should also keep in mind that even the worst media member in town knows almost infinitely more and is much better connected than literally everyone on this forum... so sure, call them out for not being as good as they should be, but don't pretend you know any more than any of them. They hear what they hear, they talk to players, agents, and members of the organization all the time. Dhaliwal for example clearly has agents as his main source and they use him to get information "they" want out there. Other media members get information through sources on other teams that may be getting fed misinformation from the Canucks side of things. Even Benning says publicly that he talks with every other GM regularly in efforts to improve the team, so if you hear that someone's name came up in a trade discussion... what do you think he is talking with the other GMs about? Doesn't mean it is going to happen 95% of the time, doesn't mean the media is wrong saying that it was discussed. The call could be "Hey we like Reinhart and heard he may be available, what would it take to get him? Boeser? Ok, that doesn't work for us goodbye..."
  10. That is objectively wrong. The vast bulk of "boomer" wealth they didn't lift a finger to earn as it was just housing inflation. That is pretend wealth because people need to live somewhere. So if boomers inherited half a house worth $50,000 and then passed on half a house to each of their kids... the kids aren't any better off even if that house increased in value. Also, the government debt went up almost exclusively in the boomer working generation where they voted to demand far more services than they were willing to pay in taxes, leaving future generations deep into debt several factors more than what they will "inherit". That boomer debt has to be paid off. Boomers were the generation that had the best earning power and opportunity yet didn't want to pay their fair share and racked up a massive credit card debt for their great grandchildren to still be facing. I am an old guy, and it would be justice if estate taxes were 90% until that accrued government debt got paid off.
  11. It was the same ridiculous proposal going the other way... we wouldn't get Konecny for that price, just like they won't get Schmidt for a 3rd round pick and 25% retained by us.
  12. That is moronic… I read the article. Not sure who the writer is, it reads like some random blogger. it starts by talking up Schmidt as an idea 2nd pairing D to mentor Myers and take on some PK minutes. It then goes on to say that we would need retain salary. Like a good 2nd pairing D isn’t worth $5.9 million. I will happily trade them Schmidt and a mid round pick for Konecny if they want to upgrade their almost league worst goals against.
  13. I don't see either team wanting to give up those guys as they are young, cheap, and cost controlled (the same reasons we would want them).... but those are the sorts of targets we should be looking at for sure. We don't want the expensive big names, we want the guys who are ready to break out into bigger roles. If there was some way to get rid of Eriksson's last contract year (bonus has been paid so only $3 million in real dollars left), we could likely make a deal with Tampa to get either Foote or Cernak by taking on one of their "bad money" contracts like Killorn, Johnson, Gourde... or even Palat, and giving them cheaper cost controlled assets. Those are all good players who would be excellent in our lineup, just paid too much for what Tampa can afford. It will all depend on what deals they can make with Seattle. My money is on Johnson agreeing to waive his NTC to be the hometown boy (and possibly captain) of the Kraken as part of a deal where Seattle gets another good asset from Tampa. Even with that move, Tampa has to get rid of another $5 million contract to be able to flesh out their roster and get under the cap. After two Cups in a row, I don't see the league letting them play with LTIR again this year. Delaying a surgery so a player misses the regular season but is ready just in time for the playoffs was a pretty "iffy" move.
  14. You are old... as is anyone who got that joke. That was the first thing I thought of!
  15. Ya, it would surprise me if they got Jones before expansion unless one of their top 3D was moving the other way. I would happily take Philippe Myers from them if they needed to make a move before expansion. Schmidt would have to be a post expansion move for most teams so they don’t just end up exposing an extra player.
  16. I think the Flyers have enough issues with who to protect in expansion without adding Schmidt. They have Provorov, Sanheim, and Myers. I would actually try to trade for either Braun or Hagg from them for a pick or prospect pre-expansion. Two cheap D with shutdown capability as insurance in case Edler and Hamonic find homes elsewhere. Then move Schmidt in a later move after expansion for a 3C or a top 6 winger.
  17. most NHL clubs are sophisticated enough to look at more than one shortened season when evaluating a veteran. Schmidt’s value now isn’t lower than it was when we acquired him. The time to trade him though is after expansion when there will be half the league looking to improve their top 4 and not just a few suitors who currently have an extra expansion protection slot available.
  18. We have exactly one D in Schmidt who “needs” to be protected or would definitely get picked by Seattle. Myers and Juolevi are worth protecting if we have extra slots… but could easily be upgraded on with better D worth protecting. Seattle will have more than 8 D available to them that are better values than Myers or Juolevi. We could potentially add two D pre expansion for less than market value… and then trade the exact same two guys after expansion for a better return once a bunch of teams suddenly have cap space and the need to replace players take from them in expansion. It isn’t just going to be the 6-10 teams that had a top 4D taken… it will also be teams that would love to upgrade their defence but couldn’t currently afford it under the cap. If they lose a forward that has a decent cap hit, they can reallocate those cap dollars to improving their defence.
  19. The point was that you don’t have to use Schmidt on that particular deal… they can be different deals, one before and one after. That is literally how we can weaponize how bad our roster is and the extra expansion slots we have. Pick up guys before, and trade others after.
  20. Our roster isn't very good, so there aren't a lot of names that SHOULDN'T be on the block in an effort to retool some of the lines and pairings. Schmidt is a good player, he just may not be the right complement to the existing pieces we have. If you can leverage our extra protection slots and trade for a better fit before expansion, and then extract extract value for him after expansion why not try? It looks like in the not too distant future we might have Hughes and Rathbone on the left side in our top 4, each needing a big physical stay at home D partner. Schmidt doesn't really fill that bill, and honestly Myers is pretty iffy in that regard and is more of an average all around player vs. being a defensive specialist. This year's 1st rounder, Schmidt, DiPietro, and Juolevi seem to be our best (only) trade chips where what they could bring back could be worth more than the hole they create in the organization. I fully expect at least a couple of those pieces to not be with the club by the time next year's starting lineup is announced. Assuming we can sign Edler and Hamonic as stop gaps, then we really just need: to create some cap space; a top 4RD; and a 3C (or if we can't find that, a top 6 winger so that Miller can move to centre)...maybe a bottom 6 winger but that can be found on the waiver wire during training camp really as better teams trim their rosters.
  21. I like the idea of picking up Zadorov… but O don’t think we have two space on LD to fill with Rathbone or Juolevi ready to play
  22. You are missing the fact he has a NMC so takes up a protection slot and won’t be picked up by Seattle
  23. It doesn’t make any sense at all… so clearly we are going to end up getting him. :D Roussel + Ferland’s LTIR space (so they can go out and get Eichel) for Keith with money retained. Seems reasonable..
  24. At under $3 million it would be honestly silly NOT to sign Edler. It could actually be a perfect scenario to rotate the three guys we have for those two spots. You ease the kids into more minutes, and keep Edler from wearing down like he has over the last couple seasons. As I mentioned before, with his over 35 contract you can make it a $1.5 guaranteed and $1.5 in bonuses based on minutes/games played. Even if he hits those bonuses, they can be pushed into next year when we have more cap space. You aren't going to find a guy on the open market for that cheap and with that much contract flexibility. Something like: First 20 games of the season: Edler every game and platoon Juolevi and Rathbone into the 3rd pairing spot for roughly 10 games each Middle 40 games: Rotate Edler out as well to have each of the 3 guys playing 25-30 games in that stretch. Last 20 games: Put the kid who has shown the most on the 2nd pairing, and platoon Edler and the other kid in the 3rd pairing spot You end up with kids who are sheltered with an experienced veteran still handholding them. You get the best out of Edler without riding him 25 minutes a game every night, and may even have him rested for a "hopeful" playoff run. If all goes badly and one of the the kids don't measure up, you have bought yourself some time to find another body. If all goes well, then by the end of the season you know if you have a young 2nd pairing D or whether you have to go find another one.
  25. I really wish people would stop using the zone starts stat as some sort of proxy for how much someone is leaned on defensively. It just doesn't tell you that. It is literally corrected for minutes and usage by standardizing it as a ratio and not pure counting numbers. It is how people make mistakes overestimating bottom of the roster players. It also just doesn't measure much anyways. 75-80% of shifts are on the fly depending on the player, so the ration ignores those entirely. The difference between a 40% oZone start number and a 60% oZone start could literally be an extra shift in one particular zone every few games. Even the guys with a % on one extreme or the other really only have about 1 extra shift every 3-4 games in one zone over the other one. That doesn't tell you how much they are leaned on or how effective they are in those situations. Interestingly a presentation was made in a big hockey stats conference showing that zone starts had effectively no impact on Corsi... so the oft used statement XX player was good because they had 55% dzone starts but still managed a 49% Corsi in those tough minutes.. just doesn't bear any actual scrutiny.
×
×
  • Create New...